Stop the America-bashing!

[lorddread]

Toronto

Originally posted by siredgar


But Canada is boring.

=)

Then again maybe that's why it's so boring.

=)

Toronto is the most boring place on Earth I've ever been to.

=P

I am sorry you feel that way Siredgar, I had a really good time in Toronto and Kichner each time I have been there! I really like the area.

[lorddread]

Re: Re: WWII for the Record

Serb, I appologise. The T-34/85 WAS the best tank of the war. But you are dead wrong about your airforce I am afraid. Even after Mikoyan Gurevich took over the design and building of the airforce, it played no significant part of the war. The general staff relegated it to playing a secondary role.

Not to degrade or put down the Soviet Army during WWII, but lets look at the Finnish Campaign:

The Soviets threw the:
7th Army (9 Divisions, 5 tank brigades, 200,000 men & 900 artillery pieces)
8th Army (6 Divisions, 1 tank brigade, 120,000 men, 400 armored vehicles, 600 artillery pieces)
9th Army (3 divisions & 100,000 men)
14th Army (3 artic divisions, 140,000 men, 150 armored vehicles & 550 artillery pieces)

The Baltic Fleet

800 - 1000 planes

After the December defeat at the hands of the Finns, the Soviets added:
13th & 15th Army (600,000 men 1200-1400 armored vehicles & 4000 artillery pieces) 25 divisions

Also at the start of WWII the Soviet airforce consisted of obsolete I-16 and Mig 1's. It wasn't until late 1943 and early 1944 that the Yak-9, LA-5 and IL-2 were introduced. These are what are considered front line planes.

Serb, what engine went into the Mig-9 the first Russian jet fighter? Answer, a Rolls Royce jet engine. Why, because M-G couldn't keep the turbin blades attached at high speeds and temperatures. Mikoyan won it in a pool game with the president of Rolls Royce on a tour of the factory after the war. It was copied and reproduced. I will give you the design of the plane was superior to the F-86. The Mig-9 had swept wings, the US's plane didn't.

Russia was able to defend itself not because it had the best equipement (I'll give you the T-34/85), nor the best generals (Zhukov was good). It won its battles because it had something that Germany didn't - an unlimited supply of men to throw at the front. It had to throw a million men plus at the Finns. Not to knock the Finns but I have never thought of them as a militarily strong nation.

[Serb]

History always depends upon perspective. You dont seem foolish enough to believe that the history of WWII written during the Stalinist and subsequent Soviet era's were free from this effect. Western histories of WWII are also biased but with a greater variety of sources it is possible to extract the "truth".

Of course, it was not free from this effect, but I have access to different sources. I’ve read books, which shows the WW2 from perspective of German generals- their memoirs, btw one of those books were written for US military by German generals, who were imprisoned by Americans after WW2, it calls “ The reasons of the biggest failures of the third Reich”. This book contains analysis of the biggest battles of WW2 from view of Hitler’s generals, very good book, btw. So, I’m not taking information only from Russian sources.

Dont forget that the chassis design for the T34 (my vote for the best tank of WWII) and subsequent Soviet tanks came from the Christie tank (designed and built in the USA) that was sold to the Soviets because the US didnt want it.

Not exactly.
The license, patent and two Christie tanks were bought in USA in 1931. It was the fastest tank in the world of those times. The design of chassis for first Soviet light tanks – BT series (“Bystrohodniy Tank”) may came from chassis design of Christie tank, but not the design of T-34 chassis .

Sun Tsu's "Art of War" is thousands of years old and is still relevant.

As far as I know, in general this book about strategy, not about tactic.

While Heinz Guderian did visit the tank training facilities in Kazan, its pretty clear that the works of Captain B.H. Liddell Hart and Major-General J.F.C. Fuller were the catalyst for Guderian's ideas on tank warfare.

Why it’s pretty clear?
I think only Gudarian by himself could enlighten the rest of the world where he took ideas for his tactics. I never read his books, so if you do, then may be you know- did he mention in his books or memoirs (If he had any) where he took ideas?

And thats what the Americans (and myself) are doing too!

Fine.
I can understand this; we are doing the familiar things then.

They are not an ultimatum, simply a statement of our position. There are too many countries that are fence sitters.

As for me they are sounds exactly like ultimatum.

Think about this, why should America continue to support countries that are not our allies "friends"?

Do you want to hear another meaning of this statement? You will do what we want or you’ll be next who will be destroyed by us.

What policies and hypocrisies would these be exactly? As for American rhetoric with respect to WWII, what about European rhetoric with respect to America in general?

Many.
I don’t want to talk about them again, it’s boring and I don’t want to be considering again as US-troll, US-basher or even a supporter of terrorism.

I'm not a anti-US. ( well, may be a little)

I was trying to joke.

[Beren]

Re: It must be in the water

Originally posted by lorddread Pot is legal in Holland isn't it? However you are smoking crack which isn't!

Okay, so you can smoke marihuana here. In your country you can drink beer? Are you drunk?

Originally posted by lorddread "Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. It provided increasing support to numerous terrorist groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism.

Its Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) continued to be involved in the planning and the execution of terrorist acts and continued to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.

Iran's involvement in terrorist-related activities remained focused on support for groups opposed to Israel and peace between Israel and its neighbors. Statements by Iran's leaders demonstrated Iran's unrelenting hostility to Israel. Supreme Leader Khamenei continued to refer to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that must be removed; President Khatami, labeling Israel an "illegal entity," called for sanctions against Israel during the intifadah; and Expediency Council Secretary Rezai said, "Iran will continue its campaign against Zionism until Israel is completely eradicated." Iran has long provided Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups--notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC--with varying amounts of funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. This activity continued at its already high levels following the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May and during the intifadah in the fall. Iran continued to encourage Hizballah and the Palestinian groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities against Israel. Iran also provided a lower level of support--including funding, training, and logistics assistance--to extremist groups in the Gulf, Africa, Turkey, and Central Asia." (Overview of State Sponsored Terrorsism 2000)

First of all, this was a government report. I don't trust the American government. Why would think that is so? They admitted they would spread lies, to help to get their allies in line.
Secondly, like I said, I know they support Palestinian 'terrorist' groops, but I can understand that. (I wouldn't do it myself, but that's a different story.)
Thirdly, when I refer to Iran, I mean who is in charge, not the religious leader.
Fourthly, calling for sanctions against Israel is not a support of terrorism.
Fifthly, Israel is doing illegal things: they refused to obey UN-resolutions that said that they should stop building settlements at the Westbank.
Sixthly, it is not clearly stated what is ment by ' their goals.' You wouldn't seriously think that they just want an evil world.
Seventhly, the information I am really interested in, the last sentence, is not stated clearly and no evidence is given.

Originally posted by lorddread Beren, I bet you didn't know that Hezbolla and Hamas weren't created to help the Palestinians did you. Both of these have origins in the infighting between the various sects of Islam. The Palestians are just a good excuse to continue their existance.

So? A lot of organisations today fight for different goals than they initially did.

Originally posted by lorddread Oh and Beren, let me further educate you in the ways of the world. Yassar, the leader of the PLO (another Iranian sponsored terror group) was offered 93% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza strip 3 years ago. To make up for the 7% that Israel wanted to control for its people, it offered 7% of its land in return. Yassar said no. He then announced to the world that he wanted ISrael to be destroyed. He is the reason the Palestinians are suffering.

The most fertile and holy spots were not included. Moreover there was no right for the fugitives to return. Why can't Palestina rule over Jewish settlements, while Israel can rule over Palestinian settlements?

Originally posted by lorddread Oh, and by the way Beren, how is that little thing going on in your country about your soldiers allowing genocide and mass exterminations to happen before their eyes in an UN Safe Zone?

Hey, our entire cabinet went home, because they felt, as a part of the international community, responsible. It was not before their eyes, not literally, actually. Otherwise they would have intervened. A report of the NIOD declared that it was mainly the fault of Mladic (obviously), the UN (sending these troops without stating what they should do in certain situations) and the Dutch government (going along with the decision without asking any questions.) Well, the cabinet resigned.

Would Bush go home, when he would feel partly responsible for a massacre in Israel?

[Beren]

Oh, BTW: You would call it terrorism to support a Palestinian groop that would fight the oppresion by Israel.

That way supporting the resistance in WW II was also terrorism.

[Serb]

Germany was forced into war with Russia for its very survival.

This is how Hitler though. He belief that its historical mission to protect Germany and Europe from threat of Communism.

As soon as Stalin signed the NonAgression Pact with Germany, he Informed his generals that they had 1 year to gear up for war. Stalin used the treaty as a way to stay out of the war until he had the forces to attack Germany.

I can agree with the rest of this. I only want to notice that non-aggression pact was signed in 1939, but war started in 1941, so Stalin needed more time then 1 year.
Stalin was a bastard, sometimes he acted like a complete idiot, but sometimes he acted like very wise and successful politician.
It was absolutely clear for him that soon will be a big war, the big war between Nazi and Soviets. He made preparations for this war. He signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler to win more time. Stalin needs time. SU just recovered from Civil war and foreign intervention, SU just ended industrialization, and next step was modernization of army, because, yes, many of weaponry become obsolete in 1939. But Hitler attacked first, he don’t have much time, if Soviet’s obsolete weaponry was replaced by new types not in war conditions, (when most industrialized part of Soviet territory was took by Nazi), but in peaceful time, then Hitler don’t have a chance to win at all and his army never was 100 km away of Moscow.

Not to degrade or put down the Soviet Army during WWII, but let's look at the Finnish Campaign:

I’m already had very long debate about the reasons and results of this war. So I don’t want to repeat the same things again, it’s boring. Just some general points to explain our big casualties: 1) Finns have strong fortifications. 2) Very cold weather –40C. (Tanks didn’t worked) 3) Stalin’s silly command. (He send Red Army HQ generals to vacation, and gave the command of operation to HQ of Leningrad’s military district). 4) Lack of newest types of weapons. 5) Lack of experienced officers (especially mid-level officers), because of terrible purges in Red army. As for results, I don’t think that it was fiasco, Stalin took what he wanted, but price was very high.
This war showed that Red army should by modernized as soon as possible and Stalin boosted the modernization after 1939. This war showed what type of harm Stalin did to Red army during purges, when he exterminated majority of well experienced commanders of all ranks who went through Civil war, through foreign intervention, Spain and Manchuria. The lessons were taken from this war, but less then 2 years is not enough long period of time to remove all Stalin’s mistakes.

Also at the start of WWII the Soviet airforce consisted of obsolete I-16 and Mig 1's. It wasn't until late 1943 and early 1944 that the Yak-9, LA-5 and IL-2 were introduced. These are what are considered front line planes.

But hardly you can call those planes a WW1 design.

How do you think, the USA didn’t had an obsolete planes in its Air Forces in 1941?
As far as I remember IL-2 was introduced in 1941, but in general yes, we replaced obsolete types of planes with new ones already in wartime.

Serb, what engine went into the Mig-9 the first Russian jet fighter? Answer, a Rolls Royce jet engine. Why, because M-G couldn't keep the turbin blades attached at high speeds and temperatures. Mikoyan won it in a pool game with the president of Rolls Royce on a tour of the factory after the war. It was copied and reproduced. I will give you the design of the plane was superior to the F-86. The Mig-9 had swept wings, the US's plane didn't.

I don’t know much about this.

Russia was able to defend itself not because it had the best equipement (I'll give you the T-34/85), nor the best generals (Zhukov was good). It won its battles because it had something that Germany didn't - an unlimited supply of men to throw at the front.

Russia was able to defend itself not because it had the best equipement (I'll give you the T-34/85), nor the best generals (Zhukov was good). It won its battles because it had something that Germany didn't - an unlimited supply of men to throw at the front.

Well, it’s one of the stereotypes about Russia.
The WW2 was a war of machines, without equally strong industry we’ve never won this war. Yes, you might say that the USSR had more manpower then Germany, (before the war population of USSR was about 194 million, while Germany had about 90 million), but USSR fought against not only Hitler’s Germany, but against almost whole Europe conquered by Hitler, against industry of whole Europe.
I don’t know where the myth about backwardness of Red army comes from. In compare with USA for example, the SU was much better prepared for WW2, it was perhaps the most prepared country for war against Hitler’s war machine.
If you think that SU took so big casualties in WW2, because “we fought with spears against panzers”, then it’s nonsense. Our casualties so big because of two reasons:
1) We fought against MAJORITY of Hitler’s army. Btw, that’s why German casualties on Russian front is unparalleled with German casualties on other fronts (Africa and Normandy). If Hitler attacked GB or USA (if he was able to send such huge army across the ocean) with the same forces he attacked SU, then GB/USA casualties were as big as ours.
2) WW2 took lives of 27 billions of Soviet people. More then a half of them were CIVILIANS. The occupation of Soviet Union by nazi was FAR different from occupation of Western Europe by nazi. Nazi comes to our country to exterminate us. Slavs were no more humans for Hitler then Jews.

So, I don’t understand when I hear: you’ve won only because you had more people then your enemy.
Yes, we have more manpower then our enemy, but also we have equally good weapons (if not best then at least of the same quality), we have equally talented generals and we have an equally strong industry then our enemy. And we have very good motivation for victory. We’ve won, because we fought for our survival, we defended ourselves from extermination. We won, because we always win defensive wars. Many countries tried to conquer us, through our history, but everyone failed. Only Mongols were successful, but in times of Mongols we was not a one country, Russians lived in separated feudal states and when those states united, the Mongols were defeated too. That’s why we were able to defend ourselves- because we always unite it times of great danger.

Not to knock the Finns but I have never thought of them as a militarily strong nation.

You are mistaken then.
They are good warriors. In times of Russo–Sweden war they bring a lot of troubles for Russian Empire.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Arrian

If it was a computer program, it would look like this:

(if) USA (action) or (statement) then (complain)

Arrian,

Your programming skills are outstanding!!! Realy.

Just relax man.
Do you remember when we have last debate in this thread? It was about month or two ago.
This thread will survive for longer time then both of our lifetimes.

Serb I can at least understand. He loves his country, and he feels its history has been unfairly treated by Westerners.

Your understanding of my motivation is absolutely correct.

I think he exaggerates Russia's achievements

Well, may be… sometimes… a bit. I know about this.
(Just kidding)

Besides, there are a lot of annoying USA#1 people around, so I can't really begrudge one Russian.

Thanks that you are not blaming me for everything.
Look, I’m sorry if some of my previous post you found offensive.

[Dry]

The man who shot Liberty Valance

Originally posted by lorddread
I have to get a teachers liscence here in the states cause obviously Holland's teachers suck!
...
Let me know when you wish to have another lesson in the REAL world!

Lordread, I have read most of the posts here, and you look to me to be more a lesson-giver than a teacher.
We have indeed few lesson-givers and many more teachers in our european schools.

But to give you a clue to what and how europeans are thinking and trying to act on the world scene, may I humbly suggest you to see (again) that film of J.Ford "The man who shot Liberty Valance".
Ransom Stoddard (James Steward) is indeed called a talker, a lesson-giver, with no clue on reality (if not a ******: he accepts to make the washing-up ) and not an 'acter' (real man wear gun!) by Tom Doniphon (John Wayne), but what he tries to bring to that small city of Shinbone is simply CIVILIZATION.

The way we sometimes see americans is that the only way they see 'acting' is 'shoot, send troops, drop bombs, stick axe in ennemy's forehead... or you will be see as weak'.
What was done for men, can be done for nations: Stop acting as cow-boys and GET CIVILIZED!! Solve problems on a universal/international accepted way.

So, please, next time you see the film, remember that we, europeans when we , see it like this: Doniphon=Americans, Stoddard=Europeans.

[my opinion, but you may have a different one]
In the film, Doniphon and Stoddard are facing the same ennemy: Liberty Valance. Doniphon just wants to kill him. Period. Stoddard wants to avoid the appearance of future Liberty Valances.
Valance could exist only because of the lack of Civilization.
Doniphon by solving problems on the short term only is condamned to kill Valance(s) again ... and again .... and again... as they appear.
OTOH, Stoddard has a problem with the current Valance...
[/my opinion]

BTW: did you noticed that the bad guy's name was 'Liberty' ?
It's surely because J.Ford was a commie...

[SpencerH]

I've lived about a third of my life in Europe and I agree that many europeans think of Americans as "cowboys" especially with regards to politics (Reagan may have been the icon for this thinking). On the other hand, americans see lots of talk from the Europeans but not much action when "push comes to shove".

Sometimes problems between countries can be solved by diplomacy and sometimes they cant. A more relavant analogy than Liberty Valence is Chamberlain and Churchill. Chamberlain thought he could appease Hitler, Churchill knew he had to kill him. Who was right? Part of the reason all of Europe isnt speaking German is because some people (and countries) will act rather than just talking.

I have found that the Americans (and the Brits too) tend to think in terms of a line in the sand. They're friendly until you cross it! The islamic terrorists have crossed the American line and we have a President who isnt an appeaser. Tough luck if you're not a friend!

[Dry]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I've lived about a third of my life in Europe and I agree that many europeans think of Americans as "cowboys" especially with regards to politics (Reagan may have been the icon for this thinking). On the other hand, americans see lots of talk from the Europeans but not much action when "push comes to shove".

I unfortunately have to agree on that point.
From my point of view, Europeans are still deadly scared to be seen as "the bad arrogant know-it-all/colonizer" they were in the past.
You know the triplet:
Thesis - antithesis - synthesis

I see it like this:
Thesis: you are like an arrogant teenager @$$#o!e
Antithesis: you are like a scared old lady
Synthesis: you should be a confident adult

[CRAZY]

Of course our country screws up sometimes. Every country makes mistakes. We're a large, powerful country, so our mistakes loom larger than most. But when someone compares the 9/11 terror attacks to a nerd fighting back against a bully in a playground, well, some of us take offense.

You know I thought maybe putting it into terms that many of you might understand might bring the larger issue to light, but I guess not. The whole point is that your government actions and policies in other places have repercussions on the people that live in the US. You maybe able to hide from these repercussions for a while but sooner or later they will catch up to you. Hence 9/11.

99% of the majority of people who died in 9/11 had nothing to do with these policies and this is what made this whole situation tragic. People paying for mistakes they didn't make.

What gets me tho is the US citizens who continue to support these sort of policies. Military spending has dropped across the world yet in the US dubya has increased spending. How many childern are dying of hunger and how much are people paying for education and going with out an education so Dubya can blow people up? So he can say "wanted dead or alive!" By why not the US public eats this stuff up!

The US being a world leader having the biggest economy in the world, and a large population has a chance to do very good not only for themselves but for the whole world. Instead they elect someone like George Bush and give them all the support they can.

The environment, Bush has lowerd standards in favor of industry. How many people in the US die each year because of bad air quality? I would like to know that stat. But being things the way they are no one takes these kind of things into consideration. These are things that aren't as obvious but are worse because no one realizes what is happening until its too late.

What really bothers me and most others about the US is how blind the US public seem to be to all these issues and still go around blowing thier own horn. IMO this is where all teh anti americanism comes from. You can start right here on this board. Listen to all the US people talk about thier country. Everyone is out for themselves, who cares if they guy beside you is starving or dying! Capitalism at its best. But hey turn your head and you won't have to look at it! Or be like Dubya and just blow it up! that seems to make everyone happy.

[SpencerH]

Stunning!

I cant tell if you're just winding us up, if you're an uninformed kid, or what?

The blatant misinformation that you push suggests that the Canadian education system has considerably fallen in quality.

[CRAZY]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Stunning!

I cant tell if you're just winding us up, if you're an uninformed kid, or what?

The blatant misinformation that you push suggests that the Canadian education system has considerably fallen in quality.

Oh please oh wise one enlighten me where my info is wrong and I will be happy to provide you with the actual source of the info.

Is it that the rest of the world is wrong and you are right?

I am not trying to say the US government is the anti christ but dont' make any mistakes... someone earlier said that they US gets involved in the middle east for the benifit of thier allies. Give your head a shake the US does things for US interests only and could really care less about others. If there are US interests at stake then the US steps in.

The environment--The US lets more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then the next 3 largest polluters in the world! I actually think its the next 4 but I will play it safe as I don't have the facts beside me. is there a responsiblity here? nah changing standards might hurt the econmey of the US... Who cares about the Ozone! we have enough money we will buy a new one! bush prolly actually believes this!! Poor Dubya!

[Arrian]

Crazy,

Actually, if you are willing to read back a ways in this thread, you may come across posts in which I repeatedly indicate that I have serious issues with US foreign policy. I actually wrote a letter to the President asked that he NOT attack Afganistan in response to 9/11, while asking that he at least review our foreign policy, specifically w/regard for the ME. Not that he agrees, but hey, I tried. I didn't vote for Bush, nor Gore - I actually voted for Nader.

So, unlike the convenient stereotype you have for Americans, I don't blindly eat up the "dead or alive" and "axis of evil" stuff. However, I took offense at the playground analogy. Why? Because I think you took it way too far... or rather that it is a massive simplification. In the nice, neat playground example, the kid who fights back against the bully and punches him in the nose actually does harm to the person responsible for his suffering. On 9/11, as you pointed out, the people who died were innocent. So your simplistic analogy, whether you meant it to or not, equated the murder of those innocents to the righteous punch of a kid who was being bullied. I found it offensive. Blah, whatever, I suspect I'm wasting my time.

Serb,

Yeah, we'll be dead & buried and this thread or others just like it will rage happily on.

-Arrian

[CRAZY]

Well if the playground thing offended peopel I apologize as that is not my goal. My point was to simplify the idea that it wasn't just people upset because the sky is blue and decided to hurt the US. I suppose using teh playground analogy it would be more accurate if the nerd actually went and hurt the bullies family.

Either way it still equals wrong! So yes... my apology for offending people.

But I still stand by my view that it was and is US foreign policy that is responsible for the anti americanism expressed by most of the world!

Who died when USA invaded afganistan looking for terriosts? I bet a few more innocent people then died in the US. But they are the terrorists.

I can understand anger I can even see where if I were the US that I may have did the same thing but where I get upset is the sneaking around and the spin the bush administration puts on everything! Acting like"poor innocent me"! That is not the case. Poor innocent citizens definitly, poor innocent government definitly not. The sad part is no matter what its not the policy makers in either case who suffer its the citizens.

At no time have I said anything about american people.. albiet maybe a bit about how they support thier administration, which is a generalization but still obviously the truth. The government is partially responsible for the free and great USA which the people so proudly defend but they are also responsible for the ugly and opressing foreign policies of the US government which they choose to turn a blind eye too.

This is where the anti americanism is born!! A bit of humble pie for some would cure much of this. But as you have seen here that is not the case.

sorry for the long post.