Ideal Social Engineering Settings

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
And there is always second guessing, both timing and motives. Yes, the US did enter WWII rather late. There was the matter that the US had to first gear up a wartime industry. Crossing the ocean with the force at hand would have accomplished nothing, especially since the French fell so quickly. Back in 1976, I played an interesting simulation called France 1940. With reasonable strategy, the French could have delayed the German army considerably longer than they did, easily by six months. This would enable the US to field a modest army and land in friendly territory, along with more British reinforcements.

But since the president of the time had real difficulty persuading his country that the Nazi's weren't very nice people, they probably wouldn't.

But that did not happen, so there was the matter of establishing a landing. Coastal defenders have a huge advantage over marine invaders, and an ill-planned invasion would have not helped at all, as America gets pushed back to sea with huge losses. So America had to build up massive forces before attempting an invasion.

Like they did in Italy, right?

The Russian defense was decimated (and foolishly executed, losing over 10 defenders to every attacker).

By the time American soldiers set foot in occupied Europe or indeed Northern Africa, this didn't matter that much. The Red Army had begun advancing on every front and Stalin's war machine was producing in force. While the materials bought from America did help the Red Army in repelling the invasion, I'm pretty sure Hitler's consistent tactical screw-ups helped the Soviets even more.

UK was badly outgunned.

But it had won the battle for the skies, even though they were badly outgunned, forcing Hitler to postpone the invasion of Brittain indefinately while he also had to sit there and watch British bombers bomb the crap out of his country.

Meanwhile, Hitler was regrouping, consolidating conquered factories and gearing them up for further war production.

He had to, the war was turning pretty ugly for him.

As it was, there was still tremendous German resistance to the invasion, and the subsequent American advance.

But getting less and less. Yes, true, they put up a valiant fight, because Hitler would have them shot otherwise, but deep down they prayed the Allies got to Berlin before the Soviets did.

strategic superiority of American commanders (which does not take much compared to the colossal stupidity of many of the French and Russian commanders, and even many blunders by Hitler, forcing some of his most brilliant commanders to do some of the stupidest things.

Early French and British generals were, indeed clinging on to WW1 thinking.
However, Churchil was quite the capable defender, possibly thanks to his career in the navy.
Stalin, who had indeed executed many of his officers, had not executed Zhukov, recognising that, in spite of everything else, Zhukov did have a brilliant military mind and, next to Hitler's failings, was pivotal in the Soviet Union not getting overrun quickly. And, eventually, at all.
Even British field marshal Montgomery, who thought up Market Garden, had something going for him (though obviously not Market Garden).
In fact, I feel the need right now to stand up for the German Rommel, who was (one of) the most capable tank commanders of the time. So it's probably a good thing he fell out of grace with Hitler.

So... calling all non-American commanders completely incompetent would be a little... how to put this... out of touch with reality.

So if you are a European who is alive today, perhaps you should think twice before engaging in the America bashing that seems so in vogue these days. Think about your ethnic background, and whether you would even exist if the US had not intervened.

Probably, actually. Blonde hair, blue eyes, perfect Arian material.

But while we're on the subject of thanking America for things done in the past I think I should also thank America for making the Netherlands extremely wealthy. Why, without the massive American demand for more and more fresh slaves our merchant ships never would've made that much profit.
So thank you, America, for wanting so many slaves all those years ago.

[binTravkin]

Sheesh, not to be able to understand such a simple statement. Let's put it on a personal level. It only takes one strong person (the aggressor) to rape (or kill, or enslave) a helpless person. If the aggressor wills it, that is sufficient. (And of course the helpless person is not going to want to be hurt, but too bad.) It takes a second willing person (a strong defender to take up the part of the helpless person) to change this from a rape (or murder or enslavement) situation to an actual fight (or war).

Second, it takes people who are not totally ignorant of history to apply this to the national level. Some rabidly anti-war people see everyone in a war as morally equal. They say avoid war at all costs. This is akin to saying that someone who is attempting to rape, murder, or enslave a helpless person is morally equivalent to someone who enters the battle to defend that person. Or that we should avoid at all costs defending such a helpless person. For example, that it costs too much to free the Iraqi women from the rape rooms and torture rooms. Or that it is not our problem; we should not become involved. This is simply stupidity and moral cowardice.

Some people seem to be incapable of believing that a nation can act in a moral manner, entering a war to defend the helpless, not because they are warmongers, or after some economic gain, or some other ulterior motive, but actually to defend the cause of FREEDOM. It really frosts me to think of the TRILLIONS of dollars (adjusted for today's values), that the USA has spent defending other countries, all for the cause of freedom, And even helping all countries involved to rebuild peacefully afterwards, few of which ever repaid the loans made to them by the American people. And most the countries that were helped have nothing but insults to hurl.

And there is always second guessing, both timing and motives. Yes, the US did enter WWII rather late. There was the matter that the US had to first gear up a wartime industry. Crossing the ocean with the force at hand would have accomplished nothing, especially since the French fell so quickly. Back in 1976, I played an interesting simulation called France 1940. With reasonable strategy, the French could have delayed the German army considerably longer than they did, easily by six months. This would enable the US to field a modest army and land in friendly territory, along with more British reinforcements.

But that did not happen, so there was the matter of establishing a landing. Coastal defenders have a huge advantage over marine invaders, and an ill-planned invasion would have not helped at all, as America gets pushed back to sea with huge losses. So America had to build up massive forces before attempting an invasion.

But late or not, it was the deciding difference. The Russian defense was decimated (and foolishly executed, losing over 10 defenders to every attacker). UK was badly outgunned. And the rest of Europe had nothing left but internal partisans for resistance. Meanwhile, Hitler was regrouping, consolidating conquered factories and gearing them up for further war production. If the USA had remained isolationist (as several have suggested), Europe would have been lost to Hitler. As it was, there was still tremendous German resistance to the invasion, and the subsequent American advance. The fact that American casualties were relatively low (but still a huge sacrifice from a nation that did not have to get involved) has more to do with the technical superiority of American arms and strategic superiority of American commanders (which does not take much compared to the colossal stupidity of many of the French and Russian commanders, and even many blunders by Hitler, forcing some of his most brilliant commanders to do some of the stupidest things.

So whoever thinks that America just came over to mop up and claim the glory is woefully ignorant of history. And if Hilter had won, subsequent "ethnic cleansing" (mass murders and genocide) would have made the WWII death toll seem small. I could easily see 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire population of Europe being "cleansed".

So if you are a European who is alive today, perhaps you should think twice before engaging in the America bashing that seems so in vogue these days. Think about your ethnic background, and whether you would even exist if the US had not intervened.

Sicander, please state you opinion about this and those from Canada who say that US just make themselves heroes, not the history has made them

For mmontgomery:
I would like you to read more history books and especially about 1944/45
AND NOT only those produced in US, but in Europe

And after that I have a few questions to you:
1.Do you think marshall Zhukow was unbelievably stupid?
If answer is yes, I can say that every sentient historian rates his tactical/strategical skills much higher than any of US WW2 generals!
Remember Patton and his stupid talks about 3rd US Tank Army:
It sounded like:
"If the president ordered to, my tanks would approach by Moscow in 3months" or somesuch
And that was one of your best generals!!!
Do you think Napoleon was unbelievably stupid also???

2.Are you aware that even Germans understood what you fail to - that the USSR threat is many times more serious than the the US/UK threat?
They had ~3/4 of their forces at the Eastern border!
Thats why americans made so "much advance"


And after all I feel that even if I was called a youngster and uncompetent in history, there are people who understand history even much worse than I do and this thread has become a place for them to express their stupid opinion and just anger those who dislike the US SHOWINISM (see dictionary if it's too hard to understand)! And Im not talking about Votan Anubis, livid imp, Quezacotl06 and other SENTIENT people posting/reading this thread! I therefore advise ALL THE SENTIENT PEOPLE NOT TO READ THIS THREAD TO NOT ANGER YOURSELVES ABOUT U.S. SHOWINISM AND PROPAGANDA EXPRESSED HERE AND NOT TO PURGE YOUR GOOD OPINION ABOUT YOURSELVES (FOR US CITIZENS)!

[molly bloom]

Time to take a chill pill people.


This is for Alpha Centauri discussions, not the all in ideology wrestling of the Off Topic forum.


Don't you just love it when you pop a pod and you get a huge expanse of forest, and it just keeps on growing?




And don't you hate it when an agri pod farms one tile, and no more?






In any case, I remain entirely grateful to the Americans who sacrificed their lives to keep Great Britain free, however critical I may be of later American interventions in Guatemala, or Angola.

Having said that, I'm also grateful to the Russians, soldiers and civilians, of Stalingrad and Leningrad.

And a big 'cheers' to all the partisans of all the occupied countries too.


Now how about that Alpha Centauri game, eh?

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Now how about that Alpha Centauri game, eh?

Yeah, great game isn't it. Personally, I'm particularly fond of the Social Engineering aspect of the game. Why, sometimes I even lose myself in idle speculation about what kind of AC society I'd like to live in.

In fact, I vaguely remember creating a topic among those lines. I wonder what happened to it? It was around here somewhere, I think.

[mmontgomery]

[Duplicate]

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by binTravkin
For mmontgomery:
I would like you to read more history books and especially about 1944/45
AND NOT only those produced in US, but in Europe.

I have read history books from other countries, and particularly writing from other countries. There are some great web sites which consolodate opinions and estimates from various sources, so for example, you can see different sources and their estimates on causualties in various WWII battles. Oops, I should not mention information from web sites, since Quezacotl06 thinks reading information from web sites is "adolescent". I guess he just wants to read his biased Candian history books. I would never cite the US History books that I studied and high school and college, because I KNOW they are biased. BTW Quezacotl06 , I tend to read about 200 books per year on various subjusts, so yes, I have heard of a book.

And after that I have a few questions to you:
1.Do you think marshall Zhukow was unbelievably stupid?

Of course not. The point is that the LEADERS were the main problem, often getting rid of many of their best generals because they had the audacity to suggest that there might be a better strategy. And even the generals they had the good sense to keep, they did not often have the good sense to listen to them. Looking at the big picture, the strategy that was actually followed was quite often idiotic, even if it was smart men being forced by their leaders to execute the strategy, often salvaging badly flawed strategy by tactical brilliance.

Are you aware that even Germans understood what you fail to - that the USSR threat is many times more serious than the the US/UK threat?[/b]
They had ~3/4 of their forces at the Eastern border!
Thats why americans made so "much advance"

Certainly they had 3/4 of their troops on the Eastern border! They had already subdued the western areas; they would have had move like 90% of the troups on the eastern border if it had not been for the threat of invasion. The USSR threat was immediate; the US/UK threat was only hypothetical. Once the US did invade and start making progress, reinforcements were diverted from the USSR to addressed the growing US threats, which allowed the USSR to make better progress.

My point is that if there had been no serious threat of invasion, then Germany could focus fully on the USSR threat. Most of the history strategists that I have read, and the simulation games I have played indicate that Germany had the force and industrial capability to entrench and hold against USSR, barring other threats. Recall that USSR suffered over 20 million total casualties in WWII, and Germany suffered only about 3-4 million total casualties on all fronts. (FYI, many of these games are very well researched and accurate assessments of capabilities; I am not talking about Axis and Allies here, I am talking about serious wargames.)

... to express their stupid opinion and just anger those who dislike the US SHOWINISM (see dictionary if it's too hard to understand)!

Did you bother to check the dictionary first? The word SHOWINISM is not in my desk dictionary, nor is SHOWINISM in dictionary.com. If you are going to make a snide remark about a word being "too hard to understand", you might at least first to check whether the word is actually part of the language.

Finally, I don't why people feel the need to put these casual slams against the United States in their posts. I would much rather talk about SMAC, but if people are going to slam the US, they at least need to get their facts straight. But it is the height of ingratitude to continually insult someone, whether an individual or a country, who has done you a good turn. For example, I am reluctant to indulge in French-bashing, because there was a time in American History that the French helped the United States, and we owe a debt of gratitute to the French for that. Many people should examine whether they owe some gratitude to the US, and examine exactly why they they feel such a need to casually slam the US to begin with.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by mmontgomery .

Finally, I don't why people feel the need to put these casual slams against the United States in their posts. I would much rather talk about SMAC,

Then lets all start talking SMAC or take this discussion to the Off-topic. You would likely get dozens of folks interested over there.

heck we had a 230+ post topic on the ownership of Hans Island (remote area between Canada and Greenland) -- World War II stuff is always good for a flurry

[Quezacotl06]

"Quezacotl06 thinks reading information from web sites is "adolescent"."

That had nothing to do with my post. Further proof you're an idiot.

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by WotanAnubis
But while we're on the subject of thanking America for things done in the past I think I should also thank America for making the Netherlands extremely wealthy. Why, without the massive American demand for more and more fresh slaves our merchant ships never would've made that much profit.
So thank you, America, for wanting so many slaves all those years ago.

See, this is the kind of snide sniping at America that I am talking about. Why do you want to further derail this thread taking a cheap shot at American for slavery? As though American invented slavery (the practice of slavery was imported from Europe). Or that America had a corner on slavery (an estimated 400,000 gypsies alone were slaves in Europe in the 18th centry). Or that slaves were even the main source of trade profit (selling American tobacco, sugar, and furs to Europeans was the main source of profit). Or ignoring the fact that in both the US AND Europe slavery was abolished in the same 19th century.

Not to mention the fact that many countries in Africa still practice chattel slavery (such as Sudan and Maritania), that in many Muslim countries, women are effectively slaves (they are considered chattel, property, and have no legal rights at all). And many citizens in communist countries are virtually slaves, in that they have no choice in the work that they do, and they do not have the freedom to leave. There are an estimated total of 27 million slaves worldwide TODAY, not counting Muslim women or communists, much higher than the 19th century.

But no, let's ignore all that, and take a cheap shot at the US once again.

No nation is immune to cheap shots. I have a lot of respect for the Netherlands in general, and people that I know from there. But Netherlands is one of the few countries where PIMPING PROSTITUTES is legal, and has been for about 5 years. Is legal pimping something you are proud of? And if you don't see any problem with this, consider the unintended consquences of this: it makes it very difficult to determine if the pimping/prostitution relationship is voluntary, or if the woman is being forced into prostiution by the pimp. Netherlands estimates that half of all prostitution is forced, but the prostitutes are reluctant to admit this for fear of retaliation from their pimps. But at least Netherlands is aware of the problem, and working to try to fix it.

So every nation has some dirty laundry to air. Shall we all take cheap shots about moving to Netherlands and becoming pimps now?

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by Quezacotl06
What kind of adolescent response is that? "The history sites I visited". Sounds like you've never picked up a book in your life.

Originally posted by Quezacotl06
"Quezacotl06 thinks reading information from web sites is "adolescent"."

That had nothing to do with my post. Further proof you're an idiot.

Quezacotl06, are you so STUPID that you don't even know what you wrote???

Consider yourself muted. I refuse to respond to any more of your idiocy.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
See, this is the kind of snide sniping at America that I am talking about.

Actually, it was more of a response to "If it wasn't for us, you would all be speaking German by now." So, you know, I decided to also be thankful to you for making us wealthy and now you disapprove?
Maybe we should sue you for illegally taking the land away from the Indians... sorry, Native Americans.
We could blame the French for Napoleon.
We could thank Turkey for being at war with Spain, forcing Spain to take much of its military out of the rebelling Netherlands, greatly aiding the Dutch revolution indirectly.
And after that, we can all blame the Jews for murdering Jesus.

But, I think, the casual slamming is greatly fueled by current day America's seeming arrogance. Yes, OK, you're the most powerful nation in the world but that doesn't give you any right to flaunt it and bully others. People who consistently say "I'm the best 3\/4|2" tend be considered as being extremely annoying.
This, by the way, is not aided in any way by talking about the Allies as if they consisted solely of American troops, rather than a mix of British, Canadian, American and even some from occupied countries *plus* totally downplaying the role of the Soviets.

Or that slaves were even the main source of trade profit (selling American tobacco, sugar, and furs to Europeans was the main source of profit).

Yes, but tabacco, sugar and cotton were, if I'm not mistaken, planted and kept on huge... err... 'plants' I believe the word is. And you needed quite a lot of slaves for that. Mind you, the Netherlands also had its fair share of slaves, I'm not denying that, but not quite as many to support the economy.

But Netherlands is one of the few countries where PIMPING PROSTITUTES is legal, and has been for about 5 years. Is legal pimping something you are proud of?

Pimping no, not as such. Legal prostitution, yes. Let's face it, it's going to happen anyway and in this state prostitutes have rights. Heck, they even have a union. Furthermore, a close eye can be kept on working conditions, as well as regular STD tests.

Of course there are problems, but not, I think, quite as many as in countries where even willing prostitutes are forced to work in the shadows.

By the way, we're also the first country in the world to legalise gay marriage *and* allow the use of soft-drugs. That should give you some good insulting material to work with, wouldn't it?

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by WotanAnubis
Actually, it was more of a response to "If it wasn't for us, you would all be speaking German by now." So, you know, I decided to also be thankful to you for making us wealthy and now you disapprove?

So you are saying you were truly grateful and not being sarcastic? This was true expression of gratitude? Come now, I am not that gullible. And it appears that you are equally sarcastic about the US help in WWII.

But, I think, the casual slamming is greatly fueled by current day America's seeming arrogance. Yes, OK, you're the most powerful nation in the world but that doesn't give you any right to flaunt it and bully others. People who consistently say "I'm the best 3\/4|2" tend be considered as being extremely annoying.
This, by the way, is not aided in any way by talking about the Allies as if they consisted solely of American troops, rather than a mix of British, Canadian, American and even some from occupied countries *plus* totally downplaying the role of the Soviets.

The Soviets did put up herioc resistance, even when ordered to do idiotic things, like charging entrenched Germal machine gun nests. But the difference I see here is that they were directly attacked by Germany.

A man who resists when be attacked by another is considered brave, but not necessarily heroic. He has no choice here, other than surrender. A man who puts himself in harms way to defend another, when he himself was not attacked, THAT is heroic.

The US was directly attacked by Japan. And while engaged in the Pacific with Japan, the US split their forces in order to help defend Europe, while Germany was no direct threat to the US. THAT is heroic. Not that the US was the only country that behaved heroically. Canada and other who were not directly threatened by Germany also helped in this defense. But the heroism of other countries should in no way detract from the heroism of the US. What frosts me is when the people that we intervened to help, instead of having at least a bit of gratitude, just fire back, "what kept you".

Could you imagine a situation where a man sees a woman being raped, where the man takes time to pick up a weapon before coming to the womans defense, and the woman complaining that the defender did not act soon enough??? Considering the 500K American soldiers who died in the European theatre coming to the defense of Europe, this kind of European attitude of "what kept you" really burns me up, as though they were somehow owed our help and our sacrifice. With this kind of attitude, I would think twice before intervening a second time for this kind of woman, or for this kind of country.

I don't understand the 3V4|2 reference.

As for the slamming, I see a LOT more anger and slamming than I do arrogance and bullying. The slamming is downright commonplace, whether anyone has provoked it or not. Or perhaps they saw some American acting arrogantly a year ago and decided to take it out on everyone since. (I'll clue you in on something: you will find arrogant and snobby people in every country you visit, and I doubt the ratio is any higher in the US than it is in France or Netherlands.) Also, many people mistake facts for arrogance. The US landed the first man on the moon. That is fact, not arrogance. US intervention very likely saved Europe from domination from Hitler. This is not downplaying the efforts of others. It is simply stating the fact that though there were tremendous efforts by others, if you weight everything in a balance scale, most experts believe that the balance of power was in favor of Hitler, and that the US tipped the balance in favor of the allies. If you remove USSR from the balance of powers, the allies probably still lose. So you could say that USSR tipped the balance in favor of the allies, and that would also be a true statement. The reason most people don't look at it that way is that the USSR involvement was forced, while the US involvement was voluntary.

As for bullying, a lot depends upon your definition of bullying, or which side of it you are on. If the US stays out, I don't see anyone else rushing in to help the defenseless. Did Netherlands (or anyone else for that matter) make a heroic stand to help defenseless Kuwait against unprovoked Iraqi aggression? Has anyone in Europe stood against the genocide of Christians in Sudan? What about the slaughter of Christians in Kosovo? Or "ethnic cleansings" in Albania? Has any act of genocide since Hilter been bad enough to provoke military intervention from Europe on behalf of the helpless? I really hope these is some military intervention I am missing, but I can't recall any. What exactly does it take for Europe in general, or Netherlands in particular, to provoke action in defense of the helpless, if they are not themselves under attack? And the UN is particularly laughable. The burning of homes and slaughter of Christians in Kosovo occurs right under the nose of UN "peacekeepers".

If the US should not intervene against bullying, who should? Frankly, the US does not intervene as often as I would like, because the cause has to gain a ground swell of support for intervention to be politically possible.

Of course, the US is slammed for inaction or delayed action. "The US did not enter WWII soon enough". The US is slammed for action, because then we are being a "bully". Who cares that a dictator is raping, torturing, and murdering anyone who does not agree with him, or people of the wrong religion, or people of the wrong ethnicity. That is an internal matter, he should be able to do as he pleases. Right? Who cares if most of the army rushes out to surrender, the people cheer at his overthrow, and that power is returned to the people, without the US taking one cent in repayment, and giving up yet more American lives for freedom. We are still bullies. I see. I hope I always have a "bully" like this around when I am being attacked.

Pimping no, not as such. Legal prostitution, yes. Let's face it, it's going to happen anyway and in this state prostitutes have rights. Heck, they even have a union. Furthermore, a close eye can be kept on working conditions, as well as regular STD tests.

Since October 1999, the Netherlands law no longer treats "organizing the prostitution of somebody else" (pimping), as a crimewhen done with the consent of the prostitute. Problem is verifying that the relationship is truly consentual, considering the power that most pimps have over their "workers". Which is why it was estimated that half of all Netherlands prostitution is forced, regardless of how that legal prostitution is supposed to protect the rights of prostitutes.

Let me say that although we seem to be on different sides of some issues, it is a pleasure to debate you. At least you stick to issues and facts, instead of resorting to name calling and flaming.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
So you are saying you were truly grateful and not being sarcastic? This was true expression of gratitude? Come now, I am not that gullible. And it appears that you are equally sarcastic about the US help in WWII.

Let's trace that comment, shall we? It started here:

So if you are a European who is alive today, perhaps you should think twice before engaging in the America bashing that seems so in vogue these days. Think about your ethnic background, and whether you would even exist if the US had not intervened.

Which basically amounts to saying "If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German by now." While I'm plenty prepared to be grateful to Americans, Canadians and everybody else who actually fought in the war, I'm not about to worship a present-day nation for what they did in the past, although it would have to be Canada since most of the graves in military cemeteries over here are filled with Canadians. If I did, I'd also have to really hate Germany (for obvious reasons), France (Napoleon), England (6 wars over who has the best navy), Spain (for persecuting 'Dutch' Protestants and not stopping when we asked them to) and so on and so forth for what they did to my country in the past.

The slavery thing was but an example to illustrate the, from my point of view, utter ludicrousness of the statement. To further my point about the ridiculousness I brought in the "Let's all hate Jews for murdering Jesus."

So yes, I was being sarcastic. But it seems to me that you totally failed to see what I was actually being sarcastic about.

The US was directly attacked by Japan. And while engaged in the Pacific with Japan, the US split their forces in order to help defend Europe, while Germany was no direct threat to the US. THAT is heroic. Not that the US was the only country that behaved heroically. Canada and other who were not directly threatened by Germany also helped in this defense.

It's nice to hear you admit that. It was the big thing missing in most of your posts, which will always elicit the "arrogant American" knee-jerk response.

What frosts me is when the people that we intervened to help, instead of having at least a bit of gratitude, just fire back, "what kept you".

We didn't then, of course. But if you now go, "Look at us, we're so great" most people would respond "Oh come on, you're not that great."

I don't understand the 3V4|2 reference.

It's leet (l33t or 1337) for "ever" (though obviously, misspelled). It was meant to help point out serious cases of n00bishness.

(I'll clue you in on something: you will find arrogant and snobby people in every country you visit, and I doubt the ratio is any higher in the US than it is in France or Netherlands.)

True. But at least we're not so loud about it.
Well, OK, except maybe France. I'm a bit prejudiced against that country too.

US intervention very likely saved Europe from domination from Hitler. This is not downplaying the efforts of others.

Correct. It's not mentioning the efforts of others. I mean, British heroism during the Battle of Brittain, Soviet military resources and industrial might as well as Canadian goodwill were just as important as anything else.
But how often do you see inhabitants of those countries point out those facts and (quite rightfully) claiming that without them WW2 would've been won by the Germans?

The reason most people don't look at it that way is that the USSR involvement was forced, while the US involvement was voluntary.

Hardly. When Japan attacked you, Germany declared war on you as well. And it was only at that point that the president could finally convince his people that the Nazi's weren't very nice people after all and that if they managed to get hold of the entire European continent, things weren't going to be looking well for the Americans.
You were attacked, you fought back.

What exactly does it take for Europe in general, or Netherlands in particular, to provoke action in defense of the helpless, if they are not themselves under attack?

Well, nowadays 'when Bush asks them to'. If you recall Dutch forces are currently in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

And the UN is particularly laughable. The burning of homes and slaughter of Christians in Kosovo occurs right under the nose of UN "peacekeepers".

Ah yes, the great Dutch trauma. You may have heard that the UN sent them there to 'keep the peace', even though there wasn't any peace to keep. They were not allowed to undertake much in the way military action. Their hands were pretty much tied.

But calling the UN laughable? Well... if you see it as a strictly military organisation, then perhaps, yes. But if you do I quite obviously pity your worldview.

If the US should not intervene against bullying, who should? Frankly, the US does not intervene as often as I would like, because the cause has to gain a ground swell of support for intervention to be politically possible.

And military possible. There's so many wars, atrocities and dictatorships going on in the world that America (or even the NATO countries combined) does not have enough troops to go liberate everyone everywhere. You'd drench the entire world in even more blood if you even tried.

Who cares if most of the army rushes out to surrender, the people cheer at his overthrow, and that power is returned to the people, without the US taking one cent in repayment, and giving up yet more American lives for freedom.

. . .

No comment. Not because I was swayed by your powerful arguments, but because we're going to have a flaming row otherwise.

[Mr. President]

Silly me. Here I was thinking there was a thread about actual game play. But no. Just like always, it's actually a "Discuss political bullcrap" and "Hate America" thread. **** you all with a straw.

[binTravkin]

The word showinism was actually been invented by British (IIRC) and if your brain is not too small, you can easily understand the meaning of the word.
By default it's "overextended patriotism" - a situation when someone tends to value his country/nation not only higher than all the others (which is patriotism), but even refuses to understand the people of the other nations just to say that
e.g.
"US are the best, we, americans are the best, our truth is the only real truth, we are heroes, you all s^ckers should be grateful to us" and so on

That is the result of the largest and most profitable, therefore also the most powerful propaganda organisation in the world - the U.S. propaganda machine!
Part of it is HollyWood and it lives on propaganding U.S. ideas - and people all around the world foolishly buy all that propaganda as films about war, about space (where mighty U.S. saves all the world e.g. "Liberation Day") and even some other who advertise the "amercan way of living"

And Americans tend to believe it, that's why I logically tend to think, they're mostly not too intelligent people as most of the Latvians laugh at it - they see the movie for examle, look at the scenes how Americans easily get into USSR/Russia militery camps,blow everything up and run out unsratched and they LAUGH - they think it's a comedy!

And I laugh at you too - as you're too brainwashed to understand the fundamental aims of your government - theyre going for THOUGHT CONTROL SE!