Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grey Wolf on July 26, 2002, 12:22:29 am
-
I just read this on the Letters to the Editor page in my local newspaper:
To the Editor:
It is unfortunate that the Bush administration has criticized the Israeli government for its quite legitimate missile strike against the Hamas leader.
In attacking and killing the murderous thug who has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Israelies, Ariel Sharon is only following the 'strike-first' policy outlined by George Bush himself. It is certainly regrettable that the thug's children and other family members were killed, but whose fault is that? For along time, the cowardly Palestinian terrorist have made a practice of carrying our their dirty deeds, then returning to hide among their adoring civilian population.
Well, Sharon has put them on notice that this game is up. If the Palestinians want to avoid innocent casualties, they need to stop harboring terrorists. In fact, Bush should take a cue from Sharon. This is exactly the type of bold action against terrorists that Americans are hoping for.
Of course, the over-stuffed buffoons at the United Nations will join the other Euro-wimps in condemning any such action, but so what? I don't know anyone who feels that Kofi Annans's gaggle of unelected U.N. bureaucrats should have any influence on U.S. action to protect itself.
As for the French, Dutch, Belgians, etc., someone desperately needs to remind these ungrateful and short-sighted losers that they would still be reporting to Berlin today, had we not intervened 60 years ago. I especially cannot believe the utter gall of the cowardly French. What a pitiful excuse for a nation! They spent the 20th century getting their sorry tail kicked all around the globe and then crying out for help from us. The graveyards of France are filled with thousands of Americans who died fighting their fight. Now they have the audacity to criticize our foreign policy.
Just as the British were the only European nation to actually fight against Hitler (the French army tripped over itself runnign away from Paris), it looks like they will be the only ones who will join our fight against terrorism. And that's just fine. To heck with the rest of them!
Michael Lydon
This is the kind of xenophobic, uninformed, over-bearing blowhard that makes me mad. I hate to think how many people listened to him and agreed with him. I feel dirty after just copying the words.....
-
the corect and inteligent type :nod:
-
As for the French, Dutch, Belgians, etc., someone desperately needs to remind these ungrateful and short-sighted losers that they would still be reporting to Berlin today, had we not intervened 60 years ago. I especially cannot believe the utter gall of the cowardly French. What a pitiful excuse for a nation!
NOW i'm getting angry. He acts like its our fault that the Germany of that time (Note : I have no intention of blaming the Germany of today) attacked us.
As for the attack on the terrorist. I'm sure there were other ways to just attack that house. It is not the childrens fault he uses them as a shield. I feel this is also a terrorist attack on the children. Why not have a sniper in fornt of his house. I'm sure infiltrants can get there. It has been proven that terrorists can cause havok in the heart of America so a government can also kill this guy "more efficient" than it has done now. Cause now it just did it the easy way. Like "Bomb the place with children and all... that takes care of it." I really dislike this kind of attitude.
-
Time and time again
Nations rise and fall
And only the stupid twits
Will make it to see them all.
He's the sort that woulda loved Hitler, were he German at the proper time. And it's true- idjits are the ones who shout the loudest, and make themselves heard, in history
-
Originally posted by Tiara
NOW i'm getting angry. He acts like its our fault that the Germany of that time (Note : I have no intention of blaming the Germany of today) attacked us.
He also acts like it was the US who saved them. Soviet Union anyone? So without the US you would actually be reporting to moscow :)
-
Mmh, maybe we should tell this dumbass that w/o France, there would be no USA? Short sighted he says? bah, I won't heat up for some stupid redneck.
-
Even better... Without Holland America might look very different (Think new Amsterdam).
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Even better... Without Holland America might look very different (Think new Amsterdam).
well, w/o our weapons, they've had been crushed by the englishs, and the independance would have been short lived :p
-
While the writer in question obviously did not have the finesse nessceery (:wtf: is with my spelling today?) to convey his arguments, and as such looked a complete and utter twat, there is some validity to his point.
As I said in the thread about the missile strike, whether Sharon or Arafat want to admit it - they are at war. The Palestinians blow up Israeli territory and citizens, the Israelis counterstrike and unfortunately innocents get hurt. Thats pretty much war.
Since ww2 has already been brought up let me point something out: Dresden. Allied bombing raids levelled that city so no wall was above 3 feet high. Don't tell me there weren't civilian casualties then?! (Hitler wouldn't let them evacuate because it would cause a national disgrace or something). My point is that we are hardly in a position to declare the Israelis "bad" since we ourselves have done much worse. Let us look at Ireland - ever heard of the "Black & Tans"? Elite soldiers picked to carry out operations in Ireland killing leading political and violent separatists. Brutal, lethal and in the end unfortunately uneffective in stopping decades of bloodshed.
We in the west pride ourselves on our freedom and often say we are willing to die to defend it. However, in the tradition of our own civilization we are also willing to kill to defend it. The Israelis are doing no different.
On the matter of Europe - its historical fact that most European nations have Britain and the US (both equally) to thank for thier freedom from the Third Reich.
It is also a fact that the EU is currently trying to form a super-state, and this is what is sparking such national anger in the UK - we pride ourselves on our independence and freedom and of our past fights to stay that way - and now we see our own politicians cooperating in destroying all that our grandfathers fought for. This is why many people resent Europe right now.
And an important point: Yes Pera, the USSR was a major factor in winning ww2. Which the US's presence was more important to Britain, the USSR held a good proportion of the German army at the Eastern front - therefore giving the Allies in the west an advantage in numbers. (Split Hitlers forces). We must also not forget the casualties they took in that effort.
Tiara - you ask why not send in a sniper? Snipers can get caught. Missiles can't. Its cold hearted but here's the truth: Why risk one of your own men when you can kill your target without risking any of your own people's lives? Even as a Brit I've said it before: If its a choice between two hundred of my soldiers or two hundred of the enemy's civilians then I'm afraid the civilians are dead already.
IT COMES DOWN TO THIS:
COUNTRIES & THIER GOVERNMENTS EXIST TO PROTECT THIER POPULATION.
-
So General De Gaulle (sp?) never existed? Aside from the fact that it was more than two generations ago so it wasn't our fault and France was fairly agressive at that time ( Clemenceau (sp) The Tiger), the leftism only came in the sixties. Not that one should expect any sense from the supporter of a war criminal (Proven in Beirut).
I love reading thorough the letters colum on my local paper, it reminds me how intelligent I am :nod:
-
Well... Uhh... Without Finland, you wouldn't have Mobile phones! ;)
-
the only decent thing this Michael Lindon can do is put his head in his arse and kick himself into the Sun.
He personifies everything everyone dislikes about the US and gives all the good people (an absolute majority I'm sure) living there a bad name.
And he doesn't know about history either.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
the only decent thing this Michael Lindon can do is put his head in his arse and kick himself into the Sun.
He personifies everything everyone dislikes about the US and gives all the good people (an absolute majority I'm sure) living there a bad name.
And he doesn't know about history either.
Now that could be a tad challenging
-
lol
-
Originally posted by vyper
Now that could be a tad challenging
Since the guy thinks he's so great he should be able to do it. :p
-
Was there an e-mail address supplied with the letter (my paper norally only prints e-mail letters)? So we can invite him over here and see what lies behind the mind of a moron.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
NOW i'm getting angry. He acts like its our fault that the Germany of that time (Note : I have no intention of blaming the Germany of today) attacked us.
Technically this is true as it was France and Brittian's (of that time of course) excessive stepping down from Hitler that resulted in WWII. They created the unreasonable-asking-for-trouble Versalies (sp) Treaty which severely damaged Germany after the first world war and angered its citizens; this added with the depression gave Hitler the perfect opportunity to rise to power, and he did. The treaty was made out of hatred and anger and was meant for revenge, not peace; and thus the peace didn't last. Wilson warned the Euros that if they went with this treaty they'd be back there fighting the same war not far down the road but of course, no one listened.
When he first started breaching the Versalies Treaty, first by remilitarizing (yes, this was not allowed by the Treaty of Versalies), then by occupying the Rhineland (the bufferzone between France and Germany set in German soil), and finally even when he openly attacked nearby countries; the French and British did NOTHING. Apeasment, "let him have it, he'll stop." They did this until Hitler finally invaded Poland; had they stepped in when he first started breaching the treaty or not created that thing, WWII probably could have been avoided.
(the rest is in response to other posts)
1. Had it not been for US intervention in Europe in World War II, France and Britain would be German provinces today. France was overrun and Germany was leaving Brittain for the time; he was literally sweaping over Europe; he could have taken the rest of Europe, then headed on the Asia, and return for the Brittish. It wasn't until after the US joined in that the tide swung in favor of the Allies.
2. This attack was meant to send a message, harbor terrorists and you become an acceptable colateral casualty; and I for one fully agree. These people should know better by now and the reason why scum like this man head for civilian populations is two-fold. First, they act as a kind of shield for him as the government will have a hard time taking him down without killing bystanders so the government would hesitate. Second, if they do kill him and bystanders as well, this creates trouble for the government. This is exactly what those bastards are after, don't give it to them. As for why not use a sniper, in case you don't know, snipers are few and need to be specially trained, which takes time; there are more terrorists out there than there are snipers so putting a sniper in there and risking one isnt worth it; especially as there may be other hostiles in the area. What Israel did was correct in my opinion and this letter (despite its harsh wording and insulting manner) expresses my views rather well.
-
1) Britain did everything it could to avert war but Hitler was intent on conquering the globe. He attacked Poland and Britain declared war.
2) America didn't even join the war until they were directly attacked. They didn't care that millions of Jews were being slaughtered.
3) It was only Britains wanting to not slaughter civillians that made the war so long. If they had so wished they could have blanketed the skies with Window and levelled every single Germany city within a month or two. And they'd have been killing a few million Germans to ensure that they never again posed a threat to the some 6 billion peoples world wide.
4) If France had totally fallen and was beyond help, Britain would have withdrawn from the war and used it's VASTLY superior navy to butcher and German attempts at invasion. And without the need to further defend France, their supply lines would be only open to ground attacks which they were more than capable of defending against. The only threat would have come from the air, but with the entire British navy patrolling the waters packed with AA guns they'd have had no chance.
5) If Britain had fallen, America would have been completely fine.......For about 6 years, then they'd have been massacred by the largest army, navy and airforce ever formed. Then they'd have launched thousands of nukes and destroyed the Earth.
-
Lt Narol, her... It's Versailles please :p
-
1. No, they didnt because they let Hitler attack nearby nations and only intervened after Poland was invaded. Being harsher at the first sign would have detered Hitler.
2 The US was attacked by Japan, and did not have to enter the war in Europe; instead the US could have focused on the Pacific.
3. never heard of window, so I cant respond to that one.
4. You're forgetting the German U-boats and superior airforce, all the British had going for them was a determined (but vastly outnumbered) RAF and radar.
5. Not the case, Hitler would have gotten the the bombs at the first sign of becoming a problem for the US.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Lt Narol, her... It's Versailles please :p
sorry, never could spell that right
-
vyper: I completely agree with your first post there; couldn't have said it any better. :nod: He doesn't know how to write but his views do make a lot of sense. (well, the first part anyway; the France bashing was just stupid)
the only decent thing this Michael Lindon can do is put his head in his arse and kick himself into the Sun.
just wondering, is it possible to kick oneself in the first place? That would already be quite a feat... :D
-
Originally posted by an0n
2) America didn't even join the war until they were directly attacked. They didn't care that millions of Jews were being slaughtered.
We didn't join the European war until Germany declared war on us, on the 8th. Would we have joined the war in Europe if they hadn't? I dunno
(3) It was only Britains wanting to not slaughter civillians that made the war so long. If they had so wished they could have blanketed the skies with Window and levelled every single Germany city within a month or two. And they'd have been killing a few million Germans to ensure that they never again posed a threat to the some 6 billion peoples world wide.
Heh, pardon me....... bull****. Both sides were againest city bombing, Hitler himself stated no civilians were to be bombed. I'll say that again for the slow ones, Hitler had ordered that there be no bombing attacks on British civilian targets (ie cities). However one mission ****ed it up (The name of the plane escapes me at the moment) and a a plane bombed London againest Hitler's orders. But of course England bombed a German city in retaliation, and on it went. The bombing of London by mistake was one of the biggest ****ups of WW2.
4) If France had totally fallen and was beyond help, Britain would have withdrawn from the war and used it's VASTLY superior navy to butcher and German attempts at invasion. And without the need to further defend France, their supply lines would be only open to ground attacks which they were more than capable of defending against. The only threat would have come from the air, but with the entire British navy patrolling the waters packed with AA guns they'd have had no chance.
Vasty superior SURFACE navy, and no, German would have thrown the vast numbers (it had at the time, mind you) and overtaken, if Hitler had been smart and taken out Britland before attacking the USSR, woulda been a cake walk
5) If Britain had fallen, America would have been completely fine.......For about 6 years, then they'd have been massacred by the largest army, navy and airforce ever formed. Then they'd have launched thousands of nukes and destroyed the Earth.
You can't predict that. War is like a play, every nation has a part. Everyone relied on everyone to get them where they are today. Britland needs to thank the US, and vice versa :wtf: And can I ask why people are discussing the possibilities of changes in a war over 50 years old? It's a different world today and coming up with different scenarios are pointless. No one could know what the world would be like now if it had been different. It could be exactly the same, completetely the opposite, or something no one could foresee (Swiss Superpower! ;)) I just like watching guys say "Oh yea, we didn't need you!" More than likely, they did. Now run along and go play games :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
It has been proven that terrorists can cause havok in the heart of America so a government can also kill this guy "more efficient" than it has done now.
its funny here in america. Unless you're muslim or arabic, you're not a terrorist, you're 'mis-guided' or 'brainwashed' or a 'militia-man,' or my personal favorite, "Oklahoma City Bomber" instaed of terrorist. Lifes funny that way
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
1. No, they didn't because they let Hitler attack nearby nations and only intervened after Poland was invaded. Being harsher at the first sign would have detered Hitler.
2 The US was attacked by Japan, and did not have to enter the war in Europe; instead the US could have focused on the Pacific.
3. never heard of window, so I cant respond to that one.
4. You're forgetting the German U-boats and superior airforce, all the British had going for them was a determined (but vastly outnumbered) RAF and radar.
5. Not the case, Hitler would have gotten the the bombs at the first sign of becoming a problem for the US.
1. the war would have started earlier, that's all. The results may have been different but not by much. Unless Germany was crushed before it could attack the USSR,in whihc case Stalin would have tried too.
2. nope, you dodn't have to join. Germany would have bitten you in the arse though. Or maybe a scenario like in the movie 'Fatherland' would have unfolded.
3. ?? window??? What did Bill Gates do now?
4. you're also forgetting that the Brits had sonar. They ma not have held you, but Germany's nose would hve been bloodied.
5. maybe, maybe not. Germany would have been able to strike at the US with their 3rd generation V-weapons (2 stage rocket, range: at least to New York). Theoretically, Germany could have developed the A-bomb (we know the were working on it but post-war research has shown they were no where near completing it, or being even on the right track) while alos having the long range strike capacity to hit you.
Yes, the US effort in WW2 was very important, but so was that of the Brits and tha tof the USSR. Without either one it would have been nigh-on-impossible to stop Nazi-Germany:
- without US: In the long run Britain would have either sued for peace or be conquered. The USSR might have been conquered, or the USSR might have conquered Europeon its own.
- without USSR: if the USSR had been knocked out of the war a whole lot of troops would have become available again, despite the fact that you need a lot of men to keep a territory as vast as the USSR under control. If the USSR hadn't been attacked: Stalin would have made move sometime soon (he tried making a serious move after the war: see Berlin Crisis)
- without Britain: no D-day, no Normandy and most likely no Operation Torch either. Britain was vital for the US as a staging ground and depot. The US had to place it's men somewhere before the invasion and Britain was the place.
So instead of calling WW2 an American victory (which is a lie and pisses everyone involved off), it should be called an Allied Victory, because that was what it was. Without any one of the big allies WW2 would have been so vastly different that you wouldn't recognise the alternate timeline.
-
LtNarol, like hell it would be, WE won the Battle of Britian, not the Americans, not the Russians but the Royal Air Force. Thus any attempted landings on the shores of britian could be blasted by the RAF. The Battle of Britian was the battle that decided britians fate and thank the lord we won it. No single factor won the war, it was everyone working together. I think we did pretty good considering we had 25% of the world to defend. Germans airforce was defeated, they took the most losses overall, even if they'd won the BOB, we were gonna gas them at Dover and we would never of surrendered, we'd of fought in the hills, in the streets, everywhere. Churchill made it very clear we'd never give in.
-
Window:
A countermeasure to recently developed German radar stations. Planes preceeded the Bombers and dropped massive clouds of aluminium (I think it was aluminium) dust and debris. The clouds confused the radar stations making them think that vast amounts of bombers where on the way. When the real bombers showed up a few minutes later the Germans couldn't make out which signals where real and which were the dust clouds. And in one instance I know of, a German pilot had a visual on a bomber wing and could pretty much have waved to the crew but was ordered not to fire because the Radar stations couldn't determine if they were actually bombers.
I think it's first deployment was Dresden or Hamburg. But by the time they reached Berlin the Germans had figured out some vague way of determining real targets from fake ones. Then the Berlin AA guns beat the crap outta the bombers.
-
I can't be bothered to read all this point-counterpoint stuff, ut I sure as hell will add to it. :D
1. Appeasement - whilst a misguided strategy to begin wih (Hitler's armed forces were so small when he reoccupied the Rhineland for example, that only a small French force would have seen them off), later it was used to buy time for the Allies to remilitarize, and was thus essential.
2. The USSR - was the real power behind the Allies. The war was already 'won' in late 1941/2 to be honest. This was because Hitler had failed to capture Moscow in a lightning strike. Soviet reinforcements had been fully mobilized and the German soldiers were trapped in a bitter Russian winter with no winter gear. The failure to capture Stalingrad was another clear turning point, as it meant no access to the Caucasus oil fields and was another example of German troops being tied up in Russia.
In a pure war of attrition, numbers alone proved that the USSR was bound to win against Germany. The intervention of the US only expedited the end of the war, particularly in the Pacific. Britain was important early on as Hitler's attacks on it meant forgoing attacks on the USSR by breaking the Nazi-Soviet Pact earlier.
The sheer number of casualties sustained by the USSR show that it took the brunt of Wehrmacht attacks - estimates range from 27-50 million, though the high estimate probably includes the Purges as well.
===
Anyway, history 101 ends now. I'll see if I can find any other points to refute. :D
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Was there an e-mail address supplied with the letter (my paper norally only prints e-mail letters)? So we can invite him over here and see what lies behind the mind of a moron.
No, sorry. Only have the city: Syracuse, NY. Don't insult the city though, I'm from near there....
-
I'm not at all familiar with the history of WW2, I was wondering do people still regard the americans as simply showing up when the war was almost won in an attempt to grab some of the glory?
I read this somewhere, it may be entirely false, I'm not sure.
-
I can't be bothered to read all this point-counterpoint stuff, ut I sure as hell will add to it. :D
I agree with that stuff; the war was mainly won by the Russian winters and Hitler's stupidity in military strategy. :p :D
-
Originally posted by an0n
1) Britain did everything it could to avert war but Hitler was intent on conquering the globe. He attacked Poland and Britain declared war.
2) America didn't even join the war until they were directly attacked. They didn't care that millions of Jews were being slaughtered.
3) It was only Britains wanting to not slaughter civillians that made the war so long. If they had so wished they could have blanketed the skies with Window and levelled every single Germany city within a month or two. And they'd have been killing a few million Germans to ensure that they never again posed a threat to the some 6 billion peoples world wide.
4) If France had totally fallen and was beyond help, Britain would have withdrawn from the war and used it's VASTLY superior navy to butcher and German attempts at invasion. And without the need to further defend France, their supply lines would be only open to ground attacks which they were more than capable of defending against. The only threat would have come from the air, but with the entire British navy patrolling the waters packed with AA guns they'd have had no chance.
5) If Britain had fallen, America would have been completely fine.......For about 6 years, then they'd have been massacred by the largest army, navy and airforce ever formed. Then they'd have launched thousands of nukes and destroyed the Earth.
1.Britan (or at least Britan's leaders) was afraid of another war and didn't do anything until they realized what Hitler intended to do.
2a. Point. We were isolationist lazy people until we got pissed. I stiil think FDR was a good president.
2b. All we knew was that Jews were were being persecuted. We had no idea of the scale or brutality until we liberated the camps.
have to go, finish this later
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
1.Britan (or at least Britan's leaders) was afraid of another war and didn't do anything until they realized what Hitler intended to do.
Wouldn't you try to prevent a war if you lost millions of men (Europewide) in a war less than 30 years before?
As you know WW1 was burned deep into the British (and into the western European) psyche. It is not for nothing that WW1 is still called 'the Great War' in these parts of the world, even with WW2: the Sequel.
-
Oh no, I started a history debate.
This won't end well....
-
Oh and if America had stayed out of the war then not only would Britain be screwed (or maybe even conquered) but America would have been nuked to ****. The only thing that got the American nukes before Hitlers little alliance was war-panic. It'd've been: Britain goes boom. Britain steals nuke plans and forces stalemate with Hitler. Britain tell America to take a flying **** regarding nuke plans. Hitler attack US and demands surrender. America says no. America dies. Britain realise that in future they should share intel.
-
One flaw in your plan...
Originally posted by an0n
Britain steals nuke plans and forces stalemate with Hitler.
-
How so. British intelligence managed to find out about Pearl Harbour ages before the attack. And that was just as big as nuke development. Hell, they even stole an advanced prototype Russian tank somehow. Blueprints is easy.
-
Not finding it, but forcing Hitler to a stalemate.
-
I dunno. After a few weeks of decimation on both sides I think no-one would be in any shape to attempt non-nuclear counter-strikes nor would they want to start nuking again.
-
Hitler wasn't even close to making a nuke. that rumour was thourougly investigated after the war, even until a few years ago untill they found that lost shipment of 'heavy water'
Mad Dolphies real weapon of terror was the rocket. And for all that matters: Germany was the only nation to have rocket that could reach so far as they did. And like I already said: von Braun was very close to making a rocket that could reach New York.
Considering it took both the US and USSR German rockets and rocket-scientists to make their own missil-programs after the war... this teaches me that both superpowers had a lot of catching up to do on that front.
-
Doesn't matter though. He would have eventually figured it out and started nuking people.
Yeah, their rockest kicked ass. Germany had extremely advanced fighting thingies but they lacked the capability to produce them fast enough. Their tanks 0wned. Even right until the end of the war the Germans were taking out 4 allied tanks for every one that they lost. But in the end they just couldn't produce new tanks quick enough.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I dunno. After a few weeks of decimation on both sides I think no-one would be in any shape to attempt non-nuclear counter-strikes nor would they want to start nuking again.
You're assuming Britain could even mount an attack. Nukes would be a ways off and I doubt England could withstand the attacks alone that long, and THEN have the resources to mount a counterattack with them.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Doesn't matter though. He would have eventually figured it out and started nuking people.
true, but the US might have had them first.
then that brings up this problem:
the US hasn't got the capacity to drop nukes on Germany without a great risk of being intercepted. (if we assume Britain is out of the picture)
Germany has got the capacity (von Braun's two stage intercontinental ballistic missile) to hit the eastern coast of the US.
Rockets may not be as powrfull as a nuke, but they are cheap, and can be made fast. And they are effective since you can't intercept them (ICBM type), can't see them, can't hear them (until it's too late)
the Nukes on the other hand are:
-deadly to the extreme, but difficult to make, expensive and hard to bring to the Theatre of War (considering the US would go for an Enola Gay deployment of the nukes: by plane) since they could be destroyed at some point before dropping the bomb
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
You're assuming Britain could even mount an attack. Nukes would be a ways off and I doubt England could withstand the attacks alone that long, and THEN have the resources to mount a counterattack with them.
That's the thing with nukes, you don't need to mount a counter-strike. Britain coulda just smuggled the parts into Berlin and built the nuke, then blew the **** outta the city. It's not as if the guards and truck searchers would know what nuke-parts looked like.
-
f00kit - we all won - who cares?
-
Originally posted by vyper
f00kit - we all won - who cares?
The guy in the top quote apparently.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The guy in the top quote apparently.
shouldn't that guy in the top quote be at the sun by now? :D
-
Originally posted by an0n
That's the thing with nukes, you don't need to mount a counter-strike. Britain coulda just smuggled the parts into Berlin and built the nuke, then blew the **** outta the city. It's not as if the guards and truck searchers would know what nuke-parts looked like.
A: you'd need the parts, enough of them
B: you'd need to be sure they could get into the country, fairly hard to do.
C: even if they pulled it off, you don't know if Hitler would bow to their demands, or turn up the heat, he was a nutcase after all
-
Most of Hitler generals didn't want war with the world. They just wanted to make sure Germany was strong and safe. If you nuke Berlin and kill Hitler, his generals would most likely sign an armistice for fear of more attacks and lack of commitment. Without Hitler and Himmler the whole Reich would have simply stopped and went back into a major recession.
-
Assuming you could get the nuke into Berlin, they had problems sneaking conventional bombs in, and a nuke was farking huge at the time
-
Yeah but all you've got to do is sneak in a small amount of Uranium. The rest can be done with household chemicals.
-
We know that now, did they? Sorry I'm not up on nuclear weapons of that age.
All I'm saying is England left on its own would not have lasted long enough to get nuclear weapons. (In my opinion)
-
Meh, I don't think they'd have been conquered but they'd've been screwed beyond belief.
Anyway, back to the main argument: America might have made it possible to win the war but it was not like they singlehandedly defeated the Nazi's, they just gave the extra umph needed to win. If they'd have stayed out of it then once Britain was ****ed, America would have been incinerated from all sides.
Also: ICQ¬!¬!¬!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by an0n
Anyway, back to the main argument: America might have made it possible to win the war but it was not like they singlehandedly defeated the Nazi's, they just gave the extra umph needed to win. If they'd have stayed out of it then once Britain was ****ed, America would have been incinerated from all sides.
Who knows? Germany and the USSR could have gotten locked in a looooong war and basically destroyed each other. Assuming Britain was taken out quickly.
Also: ICQ¬!¬!¬!!!!!!!!!!!
:wtf:
-
Check yer 101120232020121112011013 account thingy.
-
Left on it's own britain would probably have fell unless it could have drawn the battle out into a prolong war of decades. And of that I am doubtful.
America did not win the war, it was the help they provided to the british and later the other allied nations that helped to win the war.
America did not develop the nuke on its own. It was a combination of british and american teams working together with the aid of stolen plans for a possible nuclear device (plans stolen by british intel).
Unlike the film U-571, it was not americans who stole the sub but a team of british intelligence officers several of which where killed in the attempt.
Had WW2 been prolonged and without america's aid britain would have probably eventually lost. And despite C-Hills speech Britain would have eventually had to surrender given Nazi tactics at the time. Development of the V2 would have been a major factor if it had been given time to be used. Add to that the various chemical weapons germany was developing for the V2 and you understand why despite our 'stiff upper lip' we would have had to surrender.
But fortunately, things turned out the way they did and we're all oe big happy family.... most of the time. :)
-
ah, let this be a lesson to everyone to listen for ICQ alert sounds
-
1) Britain only took so long to declare war because our prime minister at the time felt guilty about the Versailles treaty (though it's interesting to note that Winston Churchill was saying in the House of Commons that Hitler was bad news since 1935 odd). Also, no government wants to declare a war, and as someone said before, the horrors of WW1 were still in peoples minds.
Intriguingly, the politicians of the time considered Russia to be a bigger threat...
2) It goes like this:
a) Britains position without American involvment at all: Starved to submission
b) Britains position with American logistical support: Stalemate, small chance of victory by cooperating with the Russians.
c) All three- victory.
What people seem to be overlooking is that it wasn't just American scientists working on the Manhattan Project, directly or indirectly, it would have been impossible without the British imput (look at Rutherfords alpha particle scattering experiment for example- without that we'd still think atoms looked like a deformed plum-pudding!). Also the Russians had a large amount of spies in the Manhattan project, which is why they developed their own nukes so quickly.
The Battle of Britain and 90% of the African campaign was British success only, though to me it seems that the war in the Pacific vs Japan would have been lost without American intervention, though I confess I know much less about that than the European and Pacific theatre.
As for American involvment without Britain, I would point several things out to you:
At the start of WW2, the American Army consisted of a small amount of men and something like 15 WW1 tanks (A British invention of course ;)).
When the U-Boats attacked the Eastern Seabord, the devastation was massive. In the convoys across the Atlantic, the British, American and Canadian, yes CANADIAN (I feel no one quite appreciates how much of a role THEY played in WW2, a suprisingly significant one) escorts were not only preventing sinkings in the convoys but sinking U-Boats at a relativly high rate.
However, the arrogant US Navy wouldn't even consider forming coastal convoys, and innocent people payed the massive price.
In operation Drumbeat, a massive amount of American shipping was destroyed for the cost of NO U-Boats sunk, one dissapeared. Everytime the Germans sank a ship, the American news would say they sank it when in fact they didn't sink one in the original Drumbeat operation.
Don't get me started on this- it's one of my hobbies and I could talk about it for hours.
Finally though, it is true that the Germans had the best overall tanks, the Allies only had weight of numbers and mobility on their side. However th British Army did have a tank that not only had front armour that could turn a Tiger 88mm shell but could actually penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger- the Churchill VIII. It's front armour was actually thicker than that of a Tiger tanks. Unfortunatly, the Standard Allied tank was the Sherman M4... with paper thin armour and a crap 75mm gun, it did eventually evolve into a better tank, but it cost many lives before it got there.
One last note on the subject of Tanks... the Abrams isn't the best tank in the World, the British challenger 2 is. And as for the Abrams being "All American", I have only 2 words for you:
Chobham Armour. Spelt with a U.
And it's Al-U-Minium, not Alooooominum. Get it right :P
Edit: U-571 was a travesty of history.
As a note: Us brits had cracked every single German code except for the naval one until a British Destroyer (I think it was the Bulldog- no time to look at the mo) blew a German U-Boat to the surface, sent a boarding party and actually took not only the enigma machine but all the the codes as well. We kept breaking the codes on a daily basis until doenitz introduced the 4 rotor version- he was the only person who thought the transmissions might be cracked, even Rommel didn't suspect it and tore his staff apart looking for traitors.
-
Sorry to break it to you, but the Abrams uses depleated uranium as it's chief defense. Also, the British inventing the tank isnt a good thing, it was just another way to kill more people on both sides faster.
-
Silly British, had to go and making killing easier
-
In short. Britain kicks ass at everything but lacks the sheer ability to mass produce things, which America excels at.
-
No....we kill things very well.....very well
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
No....we kill things very well.....very well
Yeah... but we're better.
Put whatever US special forces you like verses the SAS, and they will get their rear ends torn off and posted back home every single time.
While you go for numbers, we go for superior training. Take the operation in Sri Lanka I think it was a coupla years back- something like 41 guerrilla fighters (all veterans AFAIK) taken out by a small British strike team which suffered 1 casualty.
And if I am wrong about the Abrams, I apologise, but I could have sworn it used Chobham Armour. Doesn't matter much anyways since nowadays it's more about who gets in the first shot than who has the thicker armour.
-
*wonders if he truly has killed the WW2 discussion*
*looks around*
W00t.
Okay:
Weapons For The Future?[/size]
-
Originally posted by The Claw
Yeah... but we're better.
I'll refute that remark, Americans probably kill more people than any other nation's population :D
-
Lion has a point, britain kills things well.
You can beat a biritish gunner for skill.
The challenger is one of the best in the world, though I'd place it on par with the Abrams since the Abrams has the better onboard targeting tech. Though the chellenger 2 has total chobham armour coverage and a 360 degree turret with no rotation limits.
Only select models of the Abrams use DP armour and DP is now being pulled from active service in light of possible radiation effects to infantry and person. There was a big thing in Britain about is the other year which got the Royal Navy to start phasing it's DU shells out. Several other services and nations quickly followed suit including many american forces. DU armour is actually unsafe if it's pieced because the particles from the armour break up and float in the air... poisonous and difficult to breathe. And it can be pieced more easilly than people say.
Dense matterials aren't always the best materials to use for armour. DU is one such case.
The Abrams used 66% chobham armour on it's forward plating and something like 45-50% on the rest of the armour.
-
Actually, the funny thing is that, more than people of any other single nationality, it was actually the Germans (who had fled Germany) that were working on it. :D
Also, today's military machine essentially operates on long range cruise missiles, so it makes almost no difference who has better trained soldiers, stronger tanks, or whatever; only whoever has the best technology for their warheads. :D
And it's Al-U-Minium, not Alooooominum. Get it right :P
webster.com says otherwise. :p
-
webster.com says otherwise. :p
Our language, play it by our rules :D As for every other Americanised spelling, I refer to the Oxford English Dictionary.
I'll refute that remark, Americans probably kill more people than any other nation's population
Ummm... no. Though I have to admit your country does kill a hell of a lot of people. It's just the people you kill are mostly Americans as well. From the country where the largest killer of young people, excepting cars, is guns.
-
Well then tell me who kills more? Directly or indirectly, americans are responsible for the deaths of lots of people.
-
nah, we like to make our own rules. :D Actually, what would really be a step forward is if English was replaced by math as the standard language around here. ;7
-
But math sucks
-
Blue Lion, I'm not disputing the fact that directly or indirectly America kills more than most other countries. What I am saying though is that most of the victims are American. And it's no title worth fighting for.
Originally posted by CP5670
nah, we like to make our own rules. :D Actually, what would really be a step forward is if English was replaced by math as the standard language around here. ;7
\/\/|-|4+ 7/0|_| /\/\34|\| |1|<3 +|-|15 |)00|)?
-
Originally posted by The Claw
Blue Lion, I'm not disputing the fact that directly or indirectly America kills more than most other countries. What I am saying though is that most of the victims are American. And it's no title worth fighting for.
And I never argued either point :)
-
\/\/|-|4+ 7/0|_| /\/\34|\| |1|<3 +|-|15 |)00|)?
| wa§ t|-|1|\|k1h6 |\/|ø/2£ /\|_ØÑ6 '|'|-|eS€ |_1|\|3§ :
023489ºmath
000458ºgood
023489(00)=000458(01,00,10)
:D
-
Wasn't there an article on the net a little while back along the lines of "Hackers often use numbers to replace letters, thus making a language that takes government officials time to crack, giving the hacker time to cover his tracks"- horse crap!
I even heard there were plans for banning the substitution of letters with numbers- making it illegal. Only the EU. The same people that said our bananas have to have a certain angle of bend and that we can no longer plant English Oak Trees... they have to be German... I mean WTF?!?!
-
See? It's not just America
-
2) America didn't even join the war until they were directly attacked. They didn't care that millions of Jews were being slaughtered
First, America didn't join the war because in the American Eyes WW1 was a waste of American lives for a forgien war. America at the time did not want to go to war with the Axis Powers unless being directly attacked, note the heavy peace talks with Japan before Pearl Harbor. Europe may have been a great victory to France, Britian, and some of the other countries, but America's view was that is was a waste, and that is why America was hesistating to go fight another European War. I'm sorry, but you can't predict the future. Nobody knew this was going to happen.
Second, the Western World did not know about the camps. Yea rumors are a dime a dozen, but there was no hard evidence until the Allies liberated the camps. Once again, how are you supposed to know the future, or what Hitler was exactly doing.
-
The irony of this being that Hitler was trying to find a well known scientist at the time, one who could actually build a nuke.That's no so ironic, the ironic part is that the scientist was jewish. his name? Oh you may have heard of him, Albert Einstein.
And for what's worth about America not wanting to get involved in WW2: The fleet always met in San Francisco, that year they moved the fleet to Pearl, not because it was a more defensible position, because it isn't, but to entice the Japanese to attack it. Not in the harbor itself, but on the high seas while enroute. Imagine how threatening it must have been for them to know our fleet was heading for a perfect staging area? Don't you think our government thought of this along time ago? We baited them. We didn't expect an attack on Pearl, and when it came it was more devastating than we could have imagined. 1500 lives lost. 2400 american lives in d day. Now i'm not going to whine about it, but before 9-11, those were the two most horrific death tolls due to any battle America has fought in, with the exception of the Battle of Gettysburg. How many people died in 9-11? more than both those battles combined. The facts are simple, if we had stopped Hitler in Poland in 1939, there wouldn't have been a WW2, and if we had stopped osama in the 80's 9-11 wouldn't have happened. We sit here and console ourselves into thinking that we are the greatest nation on earth, meanwhile, we allow innocents to die while we wait for someone to come into our backyard. Part of what i always thought we stood for was high ground. Not literal high ground, but moral high ground. My daughter says that people in the armed forces are knights because protect innocent people, she's 4 by the way. A four year old understands innocense. I won't be reading this post anymore. This damned thing hurts.
Somewhere in here we lost sight. The wanton waste of human life is a tragedy. Israel and Palestine are at war, but that war is far from conventional. Remember that the holy lands are holy to two religeons. That's what the war is all about. It's a holy war, And in the name of their god, men will perform greater atrocities than they will in the name of their mother.
And that's all i have for you.
-
2) America didn't even join the war until they were directly attacked. They didn't care that millions of Jews were being slaughtered
That makes perfect sense; see the following quote:
COUNTRIES & THIER GOVERNMENTS EXIST TO PROTECT THIER POPULATION.
the irony of this being that Hitler was trying to find a well known scientist at the time, one who could actually build a nuke.That's no so ironic, the ironic part is that the scientist was jewish. his name? Oh you may have heard of him, Albert Einstein.
Yeah, that was one of the stupid things Hitler did; many of the Jews would have otherwise fought for Germany and he might have benefited from them. :p
-
The reason he kicked the Jews out of Germany was because he was using that as a point to unite the country. He used the deap-seated Anti-semitism that remained from the Middle Ages to his advantage. I don't agree with that at all, but it was an effective tactic.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
The irony of this being that Hitler was trying to find a well known scientist at the time, one who could actually build a nuke.That's no so ironic, the ironic part is that the scientist was jewish. his name? Oh you may have heard of him, Albert Einstein.
And for what's worth about America not wanting to get involved in WW2: The fleet always met in San Francisco, that year they moved the fleet to Pearl, not because it was a more defensible position, because it isn't, but to entice the Japanese to attack it. Not in the harbor itself, but on the high seas while enroute. Imagine how threatening it must have been for them to know our fleet was heading for a perfect staging area? Don't you think our government thought of this along time ago? We baited them. We didn't expect an attack on Pearl, and when it came it was more devastating than we could have imagined. 1500 lives lost. 2400 american lives in d day. Now i'm not going to whine about it, but before 9-11, those were the two most horrific death tolls due to any battle America has fought in, with the exception of the Battle of Gettysburg. How many people died in 9-11? more than both those battles combined. The facts are simple, if we had stopped Hitler in Poland in 1939, there wouldn't have been a WW2, and if we had stopped osama in the 80's 9-11 wouldn't have happened. We sit here and console ourselves into thinking that we are the greatest nation on earth, meanwhile, we allow innocents to die while we wait for someone to come into our backyard. Part of what i always thought we stood for was high ground. Not literal high ground, but moral high ground. My daughter says that people in the armed forces are knights because protect innocent people, she's 4 by the way. A four year old understands innocense. I won't be reading this post anymore. This damned thing hurts.
Somewhere in here we lost sight. The wanton waste of human life is a tragedy. Israel and Palestine are at war, but that war is far from conventional. Remember that the holy lands are holy to two religeons. That's what the war is all about. It's a holy war, And in the name of their god, men will perform greater atrocities than they will in the name of their mother.
And that's all i have for you.
I hate to say it, but it is our freedom that is making us immoral. Freedom to be lazy and to hate-we allow Neo-Nazis to live here freely with their own website to spread their meaningless hated. We no longer care because our freedom allows us to. Some of us hide behind our false patiotism where in fact we've done nothing for it.
Starting to talk funny. Ending post.
-
COUNTRIES & THIER GOVERNMENTS EXIST TO PROTECT THIER POPULATION.
And that's the kind of thinking that causes America to pull out of anti-pollution treaties and **** the whole world up.
In my manifesto there's gonna be graphic references to me nuking the rainforests to prove a point. Just wait and see.
*goes to cease power*
-
we allow Neo-Nazis to live here freely with their own website to spread their meaningless hated.
:nervous:
-
If this keeps up I'm going to organize an underground anti-Bush and Evil™ resistance force.
-
Pfff. **** the UNder-ground. Gimme a few days and I'll have a big neon website for it.
-
Even better! Just make sure that it says your the only staff member so the FBI only assasinates you on brings you to trail for treason.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Even better! Just make sure that it says your the only staff member so the FBI only assasinates you on brings you to trail for treason.
UK. **** the FBI.
-
Ok, you'll be charged with treason by whoever your really special police force is.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Ok, you'll be charged with treason by whoever your really special police force is.
I hardly think MI6 will give a rats ass about me. Unlike the American secret service they only investigate 'real' threats to national security.
-
About the nuke issue, the US didnt even begen to work on a nuke until the president got a letter from a collection of sientists about the fact that the germans were building a nuke, so germany, if the US hadn't started on nukes, would have nmuked the US.
-
Originally posted by The Claw
Canadian, yes CANADIAN (I feel no one quite appreciates how much of a role THEY played in WW2, a suprisingly significant one)
heh, we remember here. The Canadians helped us twice: WW1 and WW2.
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/brussels/liberation-e.asp
-
Originally posted by The Claw
Wasn't there an article on the net a little while back along the lines of "Hackers often use numbers to replace letters, thus making a language that takes government officials time to crack, giving the hacker time to cover his tracks"- horse crap!
never heard of the thing. Either it's fake, like so many things that anti-EU press (which is not even owned by a Brit) of ours comes up with, or either it never passed. I suspect the first.
Originally by The Claw
I even heard there were plans for banning the substitution of letters with numbers- making it illegal. Only the EU. The same people that said our bananas have to have a certain angle of bend and that we can no longer plant English Oak Trees... they have to be German... I mean WTF?!?!
Ah yes, and he cucumber thing as well.
Let me say to you: boht measures were asked for by the industry. If the industry hadn't asked the EU wouldn't have bothered. But the industry found it worthwile (and it is) so it got what it wanted. Also, said rules don't forbid the growing of bent bananas/cucumbers, it's all about packaging
a debunking site (http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg10/em/euromyth.html)
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
The irony of this being that Hitler was trying to find a well known scientist at the time, one who could actually build a nuke.That's no so ironic, the ironic part is that the scientist was jewish. his name? Oh you may have heard of him, Albert Einstein.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The reason he kicked the Jews out of Germany was because he was using that as a point to unite the country. He used the deap-seated Anti-semitism that remained from the Middle Ages to his advantage. I don't agree with that at all, but it was an effective tactic.
Hitler was part Jewish... (1/8) :doubt:
-
Originally posted by an0n
I hardly think MI6 will give a rats ass about me. Unlike the American secret service they only investigate 'real' threats to national security.
an0n, just hop off to the local pub and pick up one of their laptops they keep losing :lol:. That'll help you stay low.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Hitler was part Jewish... (1/8) :doubt:
Right, before I say what I'm about to say I'd like to say: I'm not anti-semitic or racist to the Jews in any way but...
Hitler was in no way part Jewish, as was proven after an exhaustive project in the late 20th Century. (Trust me, this caused enough arguments back in my school SYS History class)
-
Somebody said that to make Hitler look even more evil and crazy than he was now.
-
His father (or mother) was part Jewish. Why do you think he hated Jewish people?
-
Where did you learn that?
-
My education at the University of Leiden. I'm studying history.
-
Ok, I still say he didn't know that or he forced it from his mind. Its very hard to be both crazy and evil at the same time.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Ok, I still say he didn't know that or he forced it from his mind. Its very hard to be both crazy and evil at the same time.
It usually goes together...
-
If your crazy you don't know what your doing is evil, so you're not.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
If your crazy you don't know what your doing is evil, so you're not.
I was being sarcastic... :doubt:
-
Hilter was like 1/4 jewish, not 1/8th
german class :P we studied some serious topics
-
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Judaism is a religion and not a race. Therefore he wasn't even slightly jewish.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Hilter was like 1/4 jewish, not 1/8th
german class :P we studied some serious topics
My bad... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by vyper
It is also a fact that the EU is currently trying to form a super-state, and this is what is sparking such national anger in the UK - we pride ourselves on our independence and freedom and of our past fights to stay that way - and now we see our own politicians cooperating in destroying all that our grandfathers fought for. This is why many people resent Europe right now.
Not all UK feels that way, I would be quite happy to be part of that.
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Not all UK feels that way, I would be quite happy to be part of that.
*shakes randomTiger's hand*
*invites him to live in the flat coutry called Holland*
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Not all UK feels that way, I would be quite happy to be part of that.
Yeh, thats part of the problem. Some people think living in a European superstate would be better... um, Napoleonic Rule anyone? British culture isn't compatible with the type of authority that is held in mainland Europe - not on the most part anyway. To quote a fav. film of mine: "Freedom!"
Regardless, I guarantee you this - it won't happen without a fight.
-
You've been listening to Margaret Thatcher to much.
Scotland / UK can become part of Europe on its own terms. Thats very different from an invasion. We either need to be part of Europe or America or we are going to find ourselves out in the cold in a very vunrable situation. I believe that there are concerns with joining something like this but that doesnt mean we should just disregard it. As I see it Britain has the opertunity to take a valuable role as the bridge between Europe and America.
Out of interest, do you support full independance for Scotland?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Regardless, I guarantee you this - it won't happen without a fight.
Just because WE want this and you don't there's gonna be a fight... Thats because you feel threatend be the fact that the rest of Europe might overpower yur little island. You are not forced to join. So keep your "freedom". But don't come and critisize us because we are doing what WE want and not what YOU want.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Just because WE want this and you don't there's gonna be a fight... Thats because you feel threatend be the fact that the rest of Europe might overpower yur little island. You are not forced to join. So keep your "freedom". But don't come and critisize us because we are doing what WE want and not what YOU want.
I'm saying there's going to be a fight because our own politicians are selling out to yours, and eventually there'll be a kick back. I just don't trust European politicians and I feel our government is bending over and taking it from them because TB thinks he can become President of Europe. The MAJORITY of people do not want this - and thats what MPs are supposed to represent: the wishes of the voters. Europe represents centralised, top-down, Napoleonic government - nothing is as dangerous to civil liberties and human rights.
Fine, be a bridge betweek the US and EU, but don't surrender sovereignty. (Europe needs us more than we need them, we do more trade with the rest of the world than with Europe, while they do a great deal with us.)
Btw, thinking of us as a "little island" is a pretty dangerous mistake to make - as many people have found out.
And no, I don't support full independence for Scotland, because we have much greater power,security and a lot of history within the United Kingdom. I would like to see better treatment of Scotland however, but thats a debate for another thread.
-
The independancy of the EU would have a byproduct that is fairly disconcerning. If the UK and US would be to leave the EU on its own the middle east would feel tempted to ally itsself with Europe. This is the only thing that really concerns me about this fact. But as for the rest I am not opposing any attempt to actually unite Europe.
But my thinkng still brings me back to the same conclusion over and over. America has done exactly the same thing. If the hadn't been united they would've never been so powerfull. They'd be like a second Europe.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I'm saying there's going to be a fight because our own politicians are selling out to yours, and eventually there'll be a kick back. I just don't trust European politicians and I feel our government is bending over and taking it from them because TB thinks he can become President of Europe. The MAJORITY of people do not want this -
I disagree I think a fair bit of the population wants to join and those who dont admit that we will probably have to anyway. The Torys stand for the same thing you do and look how many people vote for them.
(Europe needs us more than we need them
I dont think thats true and will come less true as time goes on unless we join in.
And no, I don't support full independence for Scotland, because we have much greater power,security and a lot of history within the United Kingdom.
I agree with the security thing but it seems strange that you look at Europe as a threat when its a choice and something we can shape ourselves. Whereas on the other hand you are happy with England being in control of us when they achieved that with years of blood and oppression.
Could it be you are just scared of something new and different?
-
Yes, but I can't see how you can compare European nations with the very young and small states that made up America? Too much history, too much individuality. People would get hurt too easily I think.
Edit to reply to RT: Europe is different - its not a matter of being "new and different" its a matter of having different ideology. And you can't say my argument is false just because its ONE of the Tory's. They lost because of many others.
I feel I will be proved correct if the British people are given a referendum. (Notice how I say "if"!)
-
I still totally disagree with you on the point of EU being united and independant.
Being independant means no borders means increased trade. Means better income and barely need for outside trade except for exotic items. Thus being able to stand their own feet.
And I also think that the US isn't so stupid that they will stiop trade with us. Although not a vital part of their economy still a large one.
And i think you are just afraid that the UK will lose its #1 spot on the european charts.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I still totally disagree with you on the point of EU being united and independant.
Being independant means no borders means increased trade. Means better income and barely need for outside trade except for exotic items. Thus being able to stand their own feet.
And I also think that the US isn't so stupid that they will stiop trade with us. Although not a vital part of their economy still a large one.
And i think you are just afraid that the UK will lose its #1 spot on the european charts.
I'm afriad there won't be a UK.
-
What do you mean?
-
I mean the people of the United Kingdom will be given very little representation and that our interests will not be looked after. We already sit in a difficult position in the current EU, I fear our people would be given second class treatment in a united Europe - as a result of centralized power.
-
You have a point that less history probably makes it easier but that is no reason not to try. As I see it a big European super state is the only way to keep America in check. No offence Americans out there, we agree a lot of the time but when we dont America has a tendancy to walk all over us on things like trade conflicts or just ignore us when it involves the environment.
Also it seems we are unable to launch military operations without the support of Americans. So when they dont want to be involved (which is their right) then we do nothing as well. Paddy Ashdown was warning us about Bosnia years before we actually went in and sorted it out.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I mean the people of the United Kingdom will be given very little representation and that our interests will not be looked after. We already sit in a difficult position in the current EU, I fear our people would be given second class treatment in a united Europe - as a result of centralized power.
This is stupid. Do you think the people of a united Europe are a bunch of retarded racists? Nono. At least I know that many countries would even be nice to the UK. You are still a powerfull nation even though not the most powerfull. The only reason that might happen if a pair of screwy english ministers go insult and openly show their distrust in the united EU.
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
You have a point that less history probably makes it easier but that is no reason not to try. As I see it a big European super state is the only way to keep America in check. No offence Americans out there, we agree a lot of the time but when we dont America has a tendancy to walk all over us on things like trade conflicts or just ignore us when it involves the environment.
Also it seems we are unable to launch military operations without the support of Americans. So when they dont want to be involved (which is their right) then we do nothing as well. Paddy Ashdown was warning us about Bosnia years before we actually went in and sorted it out.
Alright, then why not try and change our government so that we DO act without America?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
His father (or mother) was part Jewish. Why do you think he hated Jewish people?
Ug, now this right here drives me up the damn wall. No pun intended of course, but try reading Hitler's own book or one of the other dozen books that is based off his own first before you start posting stuff like that. Hitler was not Jewish, he came for a christian family in Austria, and 1/8 jew? Ummm....Judaism is a Faith not a race of people. He began hating the jewish people when he was a bum on the streets living in one of those housing things I forgot what they were called that gave him just a cot and inside a cubicle to live in for just a few pennies a day. He did post card drawings and had another guy sell them for him to make some money. He had noticed that there was a lot of jewish bums in the slums of the city. This is where Hilter had began to hate them because he did not believe they were German in his eyes, that they were different and even he couldn't figure out what made them different in his eyes, but he did not want them to be part of his Germany.
-
Now THAT was a topic jump...:eek:
-
Damn, my sinister plans to conquer Europe have been thwarted by a topic change... :D
Btw- the people of Europe might be nice, but I don't trust politicians... of any country. (to think I wanted to be one once)
-
Originally posted by vyper
Damn, my sinister plans to conquer Europe have been thwarted by a topic change... :D
You would've lost :D
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Now THAT was a topic jump...:eek:
sorry ive been busy and just had to say something about that since I've read the book.
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
I agree with the security thing but it seems strange that you look at Europe as a threat when its a choice and something we can shape ourselves. Whereas on the other hand you are happy with England being in control of us when they achieved that with years of blood and oppression.
I would really Like to know your opinion on what I wrote earlier.
Another point is that the English actively tryed to purge the Scottishness out of us. They banned bagbipes and many others things. If England couldnt manage it with a sword to our throat Europe never can by accident.
-
We shall see...
-
Its interesting that we are having this debate in a freespace formum. What if the Universe is populated and we eventually open relations with other races. Your whole planet may have to be represented as a whole!
So what? Scotland will still be Scottish (unless it gets nuked in WW3).
-
Its not as simple as maintaining ones national identity. Centralised power breeds corruption, corruption results in the PEOPLE suffering, whether they be Scottish, English, French, German, Italian...
(going back a bit ) And, um, I'll let you in on a secret RT - I used to support full independence. (I was a full member of snp) I got disullusioned by the fact that the Scottish parliament is a joke. Oh well.
-
Your right in that. Corruption is a worry but its a worry at the moment as well. Im not impressed in many ways with the UK government or the Scottish and Im sure there would be problems with a European Super State but I believe the good will outway the bad.
Bit this is were our individuality reinforced by history will help people / countrys to stand out against obvious unfairness.
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Your right in that. Corruption is a worry but its a worry at the moment as well. Im not impressed in many ways with the UK government or the Scottish and Im sure there would be problems with a European Super State but I believe the good will outway the bad.
Bit this is were our individuality reinforced by history will help people / countrys to stand out against obvious unfairness.
Agreed. The unification will not go without problems. If it does something strange is happening (think shadow government).
But in the end I also believe that the good shall prevail.
And further into the future the world will either be destroyed or united.
-
Its has been my experience that evil prevails, unless Good is very, very clever and careful.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Its has been my experience that evil prevails, unless Good is very, very clever and careful.
What kind of exp. is that?
-
Good and Evil are both easy and difficult to place labels on. It's a matter of opinion.
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Good and Evil are both easy and difficult to place labels on. It's a matter of opinion.
Good and evil are relative...
-
It basically boils down to a compromise: Britain can either join in the EU, in which they will be only a part of a much larger whole and enjoy economic prosperity, or stay out of the EU, retaining their "individuality" and becoming a second-rate economy over time. (compared to the rest of Europe) Personally, if I was in this situation, I would go for the former without a moment of hesitation. The EU may not be as closely tied together as the US due to the nations' history, but this is their only chance of competing with the US or they will fall behind.
And good and evil do not exist in the absolute; heck, Hitler was good, according to himself. :D