A late complain

[vincentz]

So you are trying to diss my native country, Norway, eh! Stating that Canada is better! *#&^@$

Sorry, couldn't resist.

A) Thank god for America (we wouldn't be getting CIV III)
B) Thank god for other cultures (We wouldn't be getting CIVIII)
C) Thank god for different opinions (We wouldn't be getting CIVIII)
D) Thank god for the idea of god (We wouldn't be getting CIVIII)
E) Thank god for American fastfood (We couldn't be playing CIVIII)

The end.

[Falconius]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
Don't dislike Americans just because of this shmuck.

Wow. What a difference a day makes. I find myself quoted extensively, supported, argued with, and bashed a little (by my fellow Yank, Sabre2th) for a post from late last night. This thread grew very quickly indeed.

My intention was to point out that the US, believe it or not, has done a good thing or two in its time. I was merely countering the abuse and bashing of the US on earlier posts to this thread.

Am I a patriot? Yes. Do I love my country? Sure, as much as you love yours. Would you like me to bash your country? Certainly not, and I shall refrain from doing so.

Am I brainwashed by American sources of history? Actually, I have a degree in history (a history major who is a civ fan-- imagine that!). I have studied many historical sources from all around the world. I have a great respect for all the cultures of the world. America is, in fact, the home of people who have come from everywhere else. The cultures of the world all blend together to make the US what it is. Essentially, what you are is part of us.

Am I apologizing? Certainly not. And I would not expect anyone else to apologize for defending his own country, verbally or otherwise. If you choose to resent me for being both American and patriotic, then that is your personal problem.

I don't see anything in this post that anyone could possibly take offense to. Yet, I know some will anyway. And I look forward to reading them!

Peace, brothers and sisters.

[SteveJH]

Haven't any of you SEEN the Canadian Air Force?

http://www.michaelryan.net/xtra/c.jpg

(Before I get hate mail, this IS a joke)

[Trifna]

Originally posted by vincentz
So you are trying to diss my native country, Norway, eh! Stating that Canada is better! *#&^@$

Sorry, couldn't resist.

A) Thank god for America (we wouldn't be getting CIV III)
B) Thank god for other cultures (We wouldn't be getting CIVIII)
C) Thank god for different opinions (We wouldn't be getting CIVIII)
D) Thank god for the idea of god (We wouldn't be getting CIVIII)
E) Thank god for American fastfood (We couldn't be playing CIVIII)

The end.

I like that way of thinking, except that I'd prefer fastfood wouldn't create that much problems. But Canada IS better. Nanana!

(Go against Canada as you want. I'm from Quebec )

[Trifna]

Originally posted by SteveJH
Haven't any of you SEEN the Canadian Air Force?

http://www.michaelryan.net/xtra/c.jpg

(Before I get hate mail, this IS a joke)

Well we have FA18, which have 20 years. We also built the Arrow, an awesom plane, but I wont say why the plans where destroyed and hidden (pooolitics).

But the most modern Canadian Airforce force are ducks. Mighty ducks. Oh... we also have these planes that make smoke. Useful to hide ducks in.

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by Shiva


So let me get this straight. Its the fault of the maker of some object on how its use?

Why do you think it is illegal to sell drugs? Because there is no legal use for them. (I'm thinking of heroin, crack, LSD etc. Not medical drugs.)

Why do you think there are ppl working to make sure guns aren't sold to criminals? Because we have good reason to believe they will be used for illegal activities.

It's the same principle on a global scale. If the company/country could reasonably have known that what they sell will be used in a way that violates international law, then they can and should be held responsible.

---

Your.Master said: "and Norway have the brightest individuals,"

No we don't. If we do then the world is in bad shape

---

The problem with the US SDI program is that it gives the US the option of using nuclear weapons without having to worry about someone nuking them back. The threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was what kept the peace in this world for over 50 years. And that is almost unheard of in Europe.

---

And yes, the world does ask America to help. But America usually only helps when it's in it's own self interest to do so. I don't really blame them, but it would be nice if they stopped acting like they are doing it out of the goodness of their harts. Sure, it's good of them to help, but that isn't why they are doing it.

---

AS for removing the US from the planet... Yes that will severely hurt the world economy. What do you expect if you remove over 200 million of the richest ppl on earth over night?

---

Shiva: "without the lend lease shipments Russia would have fell."

But selling arms to a country at war is good business. And it was the Russians who did the dying. By the time America joined the war on Germany (after Germany declared war on the US) the war was starting to go against Hitler. And the war was over before Americas might could be brought to bear.

By the time Stalingrad was liberated in early 43, the war was lost for the Germans. This is over a year before the western landings.

The major contribution America made was weapons and equipment sold to the British and the Russians.

The impact of American bombers should also be considered, but it is still hotly debated...

---

Falconius: "Actually, I have a degree in history."

Heh, I'm glad I'm not attending the same collage as you did. I think you need to practice looking at things from more then one perspective.

---

-Alech

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Akaoz
Why do you think it is illegal to sell drugs? Because there is no legal use for them. (I'm thinking of heroin, crack, LSD etc. Not medical drugs.)

Yes when you make something that is illegal you are breaking the law. However just because someone sells arms to a government that does something wrong is not in any way the fault of a manufacture. Should automakers be sued because of drunks smashing into things? If I try to clean my ear with a toothpick should I be able to sue the guy who makes them? Blaming people who make things for thier misuse is a disingenuous shifting of blame from the responible party. God forbid we deal with the behavior that caused th missuse in the first place.

Originally posted by Akaoz
It's the same principle on a global scale. If the company/country could reasonably have known that what they sell will be used in a way that violates international law, then they can and should be held responsible.

No, sorry but once again your not dealing with the behavior thats causing the missuse, just shifting the blame.

Originally posted by Akaoz
The problem with the US SDI program is that it gives the US the option of using nuclear weapons without having to worry about someone nuking them back. The threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was what kept the peace in this world for over 50 years. And that is almost unheard of in Europe.

It also allows us to not have strike back if attacked. It also wipes away a morally bankrupt MAD system that should have never been implaced in the first place. Governments have a responsibility to protect thier people, not use them as hostages as that bastard Macnamarra tied us to. KGB papers during the 70's said that they thought the USSR close to being able to launch a first strike, riding out what little response there would be, and winning a war. What do you think would have happened if the ever thought they could make it stick? And as I pointed out the missiles are pointed at the USA. Europe can talk all they want about how its wrong for us to build it. Its easy to talk when the gun is pointed at someone elses head after all.

Originally posted by Akaoz
And yes, the world does ask America to help. But America usually only helps when it's in it's own self interest to do so. I don't really blame them, but it would be nice if they stopped acting like they are doing it out of the goodness of their harts. Sure, it's good of them to help, but that isn't why they are doing it.

Ummmm hmmmm, hate to break it to you but thats the way every country works. Once again if your going to hold it against us be be fair about it and hold it against all.

Originally posted by Akaoz
But selling arms to a country at war is good business. And it was the Russians who did the dying. By the time America joined the war on Germany (after Germany declared war on the US) the war was starting to go against Hitler. And the war was over before Americas might could be brought to bear.
By the time Stalingrad was liberated in early 43, the war was lost for the Germans. This is over a year before the western landings.

??? please check your history book but the stuff that went to the Russians was never paid for till 1980's when the USSR finally fell.
Good business indeed :rolleyes As I said, Stalin and Zukoff both stated they would have fallen without it. No ifs ands or buts. If the Russians fall then they lose. Sorry their isnt another way you can look at it. And also while your checking your history book please feel free to note that the lend-lease going to Russia started in 1941. The war was far far from over.

Originally posted by Akaoz
The major contribution America made was weapons and equipment sold to the British and the Russians.

Lol, try adding tying down (along with the British) German forces in Africa, and along the western wall. Also add to it causing the german airforce to be moved west to protect greater germany, so it was there instead of wailing the holy hell out russians as it had in barbarossa. Also lets add the british and americans cutting off germanys trade via sea. I always love the "russia won the war" people. All you have to do is look at what happened in the background and you see how false that is.

[yin26]

Wow. How did we get on these topics? LOL!

One comment: It's my understanding that the U.S. itself says the SDI will only be effective against a 'rouge' missile. A concerted lanch would overwhelm and beyond the capacities of the system. So MAD is still the operative word between super-powers. SDI is really only a partial solution at protecting us from a lone missile or two. Which means: The Superpowers shouldn't be all fussy about it and rogue nations shouldn't try it thinking they'll get lucky.

Of course, whether the cost is justified is a whole other debate.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by yin26
Wow. How did we get on these topics? LOL!

One comment: It's my understanding that the U.S. itself says the SDI will only be effective against a 'rouge' missile. A concerted lanch would overwhelm and beyond the capacities of the system. So MAD is still the operative word between super-powers. SDI is really only a partial solution at protecting us from a lone missile or two. Which means: The Superpowers shouldn't be all fussy about it and rogue nations shouldn't try it thinking they'll get lucky.

Yes, near term its going to be crude. But you know how the military contractors and military think. The more the better and 20 years or so (unless there was some real reason speed up) down the line I think there will be a compleat shield (with or without public knowledge)

[Rasbelin]

Re: Re: Trying to make me more angry? (OBjectivity would help you more)

Not unless you're from the US then you'd feel that way more than likely, same can be said of British feeling England is the best, etc.

I know that. It's the "national spirit".

Funny, for someone claiming to know so much about America (and the rest of the world?) you're clearly showing your ignorance.

Pardon, but I'm not having claims that are high as that.
I see that as an insult, sorry.

1. Immigrants came to America because for many of them it was a new chance to make something of their life.

Wasn't that my point?

The US was less structured and unfettered so people who,
in some European countries like for example, Finland, might not
have a great chance to be "free" and do what they want
could do so here.

Is that your knowledge of civil rights?
In most European countries you're quite free to do
"whatever you want" (that means their's of course certain
restrictions). For intansce you use Finland as an example,
even if you tend to have no knowledge of the Finnish society.

Many people came to US for Religious "freedom", and to have
less biases' against them than they might have in their original
country of origin.

I can agree with you on that point. But remember
that religious freedom can be achieved in many other
countries. And many EU countries are better for that,
than USA.

A BIG CLUE for you, people have always come to the US, legal or not, this is not something "new" since Fidel took over Cuba and not necessarily in the last twenty years from Mexico or other Latin and/or SOuth American countries.

Have I said that nobody immigrated illegally
to US before the changes in Latin America?
Cuba was just an example, as you should have understood.

To claim that all of them are living in the alley as bums or lying on their back as prostitutes is a completely IGNORANT statement and shows how little you know about the US other than the information you have been spoon-fed instead of discovering information yourself.

Spoon-fed? Hmm... Let's just say that I mentioned
the worst parts of the American society.
Of course there's lots of better things, but they didn't
fit in the picture.

Immigrants, illegal or otherwise do many of the "menial" and not so menial jobs than others can't or won't.

Did I say that Yankees doesn't work at McDonald's? No.

I know several people in the construction business who love immigrants because they work damn hard and get paid well for what they do. Sure $7-$10 an hour might not sound like much for such hard work but for a lot of these people this is much more pay for the same amount of work they'd do in their home countries anyway. Many of these folks also send money back to others outside the US and pay the way for more people to better themselves.

That's an old fact. Nothing new.

Sorry, the US is not a socialist country, it is not (IMHO) society's place to support people who aren't willing to work to make a living.

Oh, sorry! I didn't know that! Okay, verrrrrry funny.
I haven't demanded that US should be ruled be
socialists or communists. I think the American society model
works in many ways, but there's quite many cons
(like the taxation and the support of the poor ones).

I could ask you the same thing, are you done with your little rant against the US yet? It is getting quite tiresome (but still amusing).

THings aren't as cut and dry as you'd like them to appear as well.

Is that a compliment?

Umm, are you crazy or just stupid?

Revolutionary could describe me better. Perhaps I think from
a non-American point of view and in depth. But crazy or
stupid are the wrong words. BTW, have you ever considered
that some people want to remind others about the negative sides
sometimes? I just wanted to rant that the pro-USA propaganda
has gone too far here, or at least some of us have spoke
up with that "God bless America!" attitude.

Hitler WAS a threat to EVERYONE'S homeland, which was proven when he conquered HOW many countries??

I know that. I have never denied that. And that's also
a fact.

Ah, clue for you, but we can't tell them how to use them, you'd be better off complaining to the Russians about their behavior in that war than *****ing at the US for apparently "not policing" what other countries did with the equipment they bought and paid for.

So you're perfectly aware of what Israel receives every year
from Santa Claus de US?

Why don't you take your own advice and read some history not slanted by the Finnish view, you might be surprised that you're as "brain-washed" with nationalism as all the other countries citizens who don't take the time to look at the real facts.

Sorry, but I can't do that. I have done that for many years.
And remember, I'm just giving a reminder on some of the
downsides of US.

Hmm, to use the earlier Brisith Empire example, did Britian "balance" the world by essentially taking control of India, South, Hong Kong and parts of a lot of other countries (a tad rusty, heh)? Heck no, they did what they felt they had to do to SPREAD their influence and secure or increase their stature in the world.

That's also true (I haven't denied that too). My example:
the Kurd problem. Who has actually caused it over 75 years
ago? The British empire. It was caused by UK, when they wanted
to take over large parts of Turkish territory in Iraq (city of Mosul).

Is it really neccessary to try to place the blame for the entire world's troubles at the feet of one country?

No, that's not my intention. Perhaps I gave a very narrow view
on the subject, but the point was that US shouldn't always try
to be some damn proud of its achievements. I don't say that
USA has done wrong to the rest of the world, but it could
be vise to review the events of the past century and think
what USA could have done better.

Hopefully this cleared things up.
And finally...
Don't take all my opinions personally.
And if my remarks have offended or caused you
any mental injuries to you and/or your soul, I apologize for that.

[Akaoz]

Shiva: “Should automakers be sued because of drunks smashing into things?”

If I am drunk when you sell it to me, yes.

And I am not saying we should say Iraq couldn’t be held accountable too, for making Bio/Chem weapons.

Shiva: “No, sorry but once again your not dealing with the behavior thats causing the missuse, just shifting the blame.”

We can deal with both! They are both a part of the problem. If I pay you to kill someone I am still doing something that is morally wrong. If I sell a gun to a person I know is going to kill someone with it, it is till wrong.

The only defense would be if I had no idea you were going to kill someone with it.

Shiva: “KGB papers during the 70's said that they thought the USSR close to being able to launch a first strike, riding out what little response there would be, and winning a war. What do you think would have happened if the ever thought they could make it stick?”

And what is to stop the US from Nuking someone if they have SDI? Not everyone in the world trusts the US with that sort of power. It could even provoke an attack to try to stop you from building it.

Having one country inn the world with absolute power (nukes without threat of retaliation) is at best dangderous.

Shiva: “Ummmm hmmmm, hate to break it to you but thats the way every country works. Once again if your going to hold it against us be be fair about it and hold it against all.”

Damn it. Would you read what I’m typing!? I never said it was wrong of the US to look out for number one. I said: “I don't really blame them, but it would be nice if they stopped acting like they are doing it out of the goodness of their harts.”

Shiva: Stalin and Zukoff both stated they would have fallen without it. No ifs ands or buts.

Have I said ‘If or But’? I said: “it was the Russians who did the dying.” And: “The major contribution America made was weapons and equipment sold to the British and the Russians.”

Shiva: “note that the lend-lease going to Russia started in 1941. The war was far far from over.”

My point was that Russians did the dying. I know when lend-lease started.

Shiva: “Also add to it causing the german airforce to be moved west to protect greater germany, so it was there instead of wailing the holy hell out russians as it had in barbarossa. Also lets add the british and americans cutting off germanys trade via sea.”

The German Air force was reduced by the British in the Battle of Britain 40-41. It was effective in the opening days of the Barbarossa campaign, but as air fields got fewer and supplies scarcer, it was decided that it would be put to better use in the west.

Trust me: Russia did the dirty work. They alone reduced the Heer to the point were a sea born invasion of France was possible. 80% of losses inflicted on Germany were made in the east.

I’m not saying they could have held out if England had been knocked out of the war, or America hadn’t supplied extra weapons and supplies. My point is that Americas part in the defeat of Germany in not as large as many Americans like to think.

--

yin26: “It's my understanding that the U.S. itself says the SDI will only be effective against a 'rouge' missile. A concerted lanch would overwhelm and beyond the capacities of the system. So MAD is still the operative word between super-powers. SDI is really only a partial solution at protecting us from a lone missile or two. Which means: The Superpowers shouldn't be all fussy about it and rogue nations shouldn't try it thinking they'll get lucky.”

If so then my opposition to SDI is reduced.

-Alech

[Falconius]

Originally posted by Akaoz
Falconius: "Actually, I have a degree in history."

Heh, I'm glad I'm not attending the same collage as you did. I think you need to practice looking at things from more then one perspective.-Alech

Aaaaahhh.... More insults without reasoning....

This quote implies that because my view of the world is not the same as yours, I am narrow-minded. The fact is, you are the one losing your cool and hurling insults because someone else's view does not match your own.

Go in peace, my brother....

[Akaoz]

ohhh... Did I offend the American History Major? Sorry, but your first post showed that you are narrow minded.

If you truly can see things from more than one perspective, take issue with the criticisms of America presented, and stop crying about ppl insulting you.

-Alech

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Akaoz
The only defense would be if I had no idea you were going to kill someone with it.

With arms you know someone is going to kill with it when you sell it. It is still the person misusing them that is the problem.

Originally posted by Akaoz
And what is to stop the US from Nuking someone if they have SDI? Not everyone in the world trusts the US with that sort of power. It could even provoke an attack to try to stop you from building it.

The same thing that stops us from nuking people now. There are many nations out there we could toss a nuke at now and no one could stop us. But we havnt have we? As to no everyone trusting us it still does not over-rule our governments job to protect us.
As for provoking an attack to stave it off, I doubt anyone would make a move like that that would end up in the total destruction of thier nation and wrecking a good part of the world because of what "could" happen because of a shield.

Originally posted by Akaoz
Damn it. Would you read what I’m typing!? I never said it was wrong of the US to look out for number one. I said: “I don't really blame them, but it would be nice if they stopped acting like they are doing it out of the goodness of their harts.”

Everyone acts that way as I said. I'll make you a deal. When the rest of the human race stops putting out PR we will too

Originally posted by Akaoz
Have I said ‘If or But’? I said: “it was the Russians who did the dying.” And: “The major contribution America made was weapons and equipment sold to the British and the Russians.”

Having the most dead doesnt mean you have won the war. Nor does it make this statement true:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, Germany was toast without America. The Soviets were the wons who truly won the war.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the statement that started this whole thing. This is the statement that is false. Germany would have defeated Russia in the first half of 42 without America and England for all the reasons I have noted. Therefor Germany was not "toast", therefor the Soviets didnt "truly" win the war. It was the actions of all. It is a myth of people who havent studied the war with any effort and unfortunately you can find crap like this being stated as fact by people who have a problem with the US as this person sounds like. Once again dying doesnt mean you win the war. Ask the guys at Carthage and Troy.

Originally posted by Akaoz
The German Air force was reduced by the British in the Battle of Britain 40-41. It was effective in the opening days of the Barbarossa campaign, but as air fields got fewer and supplies scarcer, it was decided that it would be put to better use in the west.

First off the Luftwaffe gained over 1000 operational aircraft from the start to finish of the battle of britain. This number is combat aircraft in the combat zone. It doesnt include training units or units in other theaters (around 100 of these aircraft are transports). The Luftwaffe was hardly reduced and infact had learned alot. Add to it that the FW-190 started to show up in early in '41 the Luftwaffe was stronger and smarter.
Second the Luftwaffe was not pulled from the western front for any reason other than the threat in the west. Supplies were not scarce, the only problem that they had durring barbarossa was that they would out run the rails carring the suppies. Thats all.

Originally posted by Akaoz
Trust me: Russia did the dirty work.

I never said that they didnt do thier share. I said they didnt win the war by themselves and the facts prove it out. It was a team effort no matter how bad people want to re-write history because they dont like America. I'd also like to say that unlike russia both the US and England also fought Japan at the same time they fought the germans.

[Falconius]

Originally posted by Akaoz
Sorry

Apology accepted.

Originally posted by Akaoz
your first post showed that you are narrow minded.

Oh no! Another insult!

Originally posted by Akaoz
stop crying about ppl insulting you.

I'll let you in on a little secret. I cried when my country was attacked by terrorists. I cried when the US Congress gathered together and announced that despite all their differences, they were united against the new threat, and then started singing, "God Bless America." I cried yesterday when the news showed drawings by American children exhibiting their impressions of the WTC attack. It's a very emotional time here in the US. As such, your petty insults are mere trifles that don't even scrath the surface of the psyche. I point them out to you because you seem to be targeting me personally, rather than the assertions of my opinions. You'll notice I have taken the high road and have yet to insult you or your country (so far anyway).

Actually, no one can insult your country because you are apparently not proud enough of it to show it in your address!