USA - decides everything!

12357

Comments

  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Alas...ignorance abounds.

    Fascist's unite!

    whenever u feel the need to add something to the conversation please jump in at any time. otherwise...well you know
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Maybe it had something to do with the fact that they were busy destroying 3/4's of the German army on the Eastern front?

    Russia certainly had a big part in defeating hitler, but without American involvement germany would have won. just admit that, and you can gain some credibility
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    whenever u feel the need to add something to the conversation please jump in at any time. otherwise...well you know


    Yeah I see all your non existent links and factless opines.

    The sad part is you're a fascist during a neo-con regime.

    Congratulations. How is Satan in bed btw?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    Russia certainly had a big part in defeating hitler, but without American involvement germany would have won. just admit that, and you can gain some credibility

    Maybe it could be said without Russia Germany would have won, or without Britain or the other allies. The point is that the allies combined to beat a common enemy, and it just doesn't make sense for one country or another to try to make out it was just because of their involvement.

    To use a US analogy it would be like giving all the glory to the quarterback and totally ignoring the contribution of the rest of the team.
    Now I'm livin' out here on the beach,
    but those seagulls are still out of reach.
  • ViggoViggo Posts: 274
    Maybe we should close this thread, but in the other hand.. it's healthy to discuss this, although it is even easier to walk out of track.
    It's okay, It's okay
    You don't have to run and hide away
    It's okay, it's okay
    I love you anyway
    2007: Pearl Jam concert in Düsseldorf (21. June)
    2007: Chris Cornell concert in Kristiansand (2. July)
    2007: The Who concert in Kristiansand (4. July)
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Maybe it could be said without Russia Germany would have won, or without Britain or the other allies. The point is that the allies combined to beat a common enemy, and it just doesn't make sense for one country or another to try to make out it was just because of their involvement.

    To use a US analogy it would be like giving all the glory to the quarterback and totally ignoring the contribution of the rest of the team.

    I agree. I'm not marginalizing any countries involvement like byzine is.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Yeah I see all your non existent links and factless opines.

    The sad part is you're a fascist during a neo-con regime.

    Congratulations. How is Satan in bed btw?


    I dont need links to give an educated opinion.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    wars arent won by numbers of soldiers lost. your blind hatred for america seems to get in the way of the reality of the war

    Wars aren't won by numbers of soldiers lost? Really? How are they won then?
    And what does the fact that Nazi Germany was defeated on the Eastern front have to do with me supposedly hating America? :confused:
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Wars aren't won by numbers of soldiers lost? Really? How are they won then?
    when one side surrenders. are you trying to say wars are won or lost based upon # dead? wouldnt that mean that Russia lost?
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    I dont need links to give an educated opinion.


    If you want your opinion to have any merit it's rather helpful. Especially with such nonsensical ideas as the ones your coming up with.

    Imagine all those millions of people's lives overseas being so useless and inconsequential. If it weren't for the US....we'd all be speaking German.

    Reducing all those millions of lives in the name of self, while pointing fingers at others citing the same.

    That's some serious level of hypocrisy.

    I'll think I'd probably go with the sheer numbers involved, and not reduce the value of human lives to fit some Hollywood fabricated fantasy world. That would seem to be a common sense approach.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    If you want your opinion to have any merit it's rather helpful. Especially with such nonsensical ideas as the ones your coming up with.
    such as?
    Imagine all those millions of people's lives overseas being so useless and inconsequential. If it weren't for the US....we'd all be speaking German.

    Reducing all those millions of lives in the name of self, while pointing fingers at others citing the same.

    That's some serious level of hypocrisy.

    I'll think I'd probably go with the sheer numbers involved, and not reduce the value of human lives to fit some Hollywood fabricated fantasy world. That would seem to be a common sense approach.

    where the fuck are you coming up with all of this?
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    such as?



    where the fuck are you coming up with all of this?


    I beginning to think it's pointless debating reality with you...you're broken...and your memory sucks :p
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I beginning to think it's pointless debating reality with you...you're broken...and your memory sucks :p

    seriously what is this about? what are you trying to debate with me? are we talking about WWII? what?
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    seriously what is this about? what are you trying to debate with me? are we talking about WWII? what?

    You do seem to have short term memory issues.

    Light up and have another cigarette. hehe
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Jlew I like to see you do more than 30 pushups without fainting.

    Actually that would impress me far more than anything you've come up with so far.

    edit: ROFL!! :D:D
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,054
    Jlew I like to see you do more than 30 pushups without fainting.

    Actually that would impress me far more than anything you've come up with so far.

    edit: ROFL!! :D:D

    I don't know that I could do 30 pushups straight. I am very weak. I'd be lucky to do 10.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,054
    Jlew I like to see you do more than 30 pushups without fainting.

    Actually that would impress me far more than anything you've come up with so far.

    edit: ROFL!! :D:D

    You like to laugh at your own jokes. Lame.
  • You like to laugh at your own jokes. Lame.

    It's an inside joke in respose to jlews cute little passive agressive comment he sent to me in a PM about me dying.

    Jlew.. You should be more careful about making back handed remarks regarding my death. They could be misconstrued as remarks of a threatening nature.

    Not a very good idea at all.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    private messages are exactly that. private. if anyone has a problem with something that is said to them then they should take it up with one of the admin here. not drag it out onto the forum.

    i really like both rolands and j lews 'normal' posts, but i hate reading all this crap. be nice to each other. you can still debate without the attacks. kiss and make up. please. i don't want either of you to be banned, already some of the regular posters have disappeared and it will be a loss to everyone if you are both not here. it will.

    jeez.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Russia certainly had a big part in defeating hitler, but without American involvement germany would have won. just admit that, and you can gain some credibility

    I won't admit it because it's not true. The facts still stand regardless of your deluded chest-thumping.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I won't admit it because it's not true. The facts still stand regardless of your deluded chest-thumping.

    its sad that you think that. and you only believe it because of how you despise America. and I'm not chest pumping. America could have have defeated Hitler without help from the allies. but American involvement certainly played a major role in ending the war.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    jlew24asu wrote:
    when one side surrenders. are you trying to say wars are won or lost based upon # dead? wouldnt that mean that Russia lost?
    ...
    This is true. The Russian lost a lot of people in World War II (about 20 million including civilians) to Germany's 7 million (also, including civilians).
    But, what about Viet Nam? The North Vietnamese lost every military battle in that war. All they needed to do was survive.
    The same goes for our current War On Terror. Our military has not lost one battle. All the terrorists need to do is survive because they will never surrender. We can fight them for 50 years and all they have to do is survive to the point where we decide to call off the fight. The Arabs have a saying about killing the giant by death of a thousand cuts. That is the stratagy they used against the Soviets in Afghanistan and it worked. And it is going to work against us. The only way we can 'Win' this war is to kill them all. This means killing the terrorists and their families and their friends and anyone else looking to avenge their deaths.
    The question we need to ask ourselves is... How much are we willing to accept as 'acceptable losses' until it becomes unacceptable to us?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • fanch75fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    This is true. The Russian lost a lot of people in World War II (about 20 million including civilians) to Germany's 7 million (also, including civilians).

    20 million? 7 million? Really? That's hard to absorb and wrap my head around.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    fanch75 wrote:
    20 million? 7 million? Really? That's hard to absorb and wrap my head around.

    yes it is. http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob62.html
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    fanch75 wrote:
    20 million? 7 million? Really? That's hard to absorb and wrap my head around.
    ...
    Well... I got the numbers from wikipedia... not the best source.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
    ...
    The Eastern Front was literally, Hell On Earth... except hell was hellishly freeazing ass. Many died from minor wounds and were too far from any type of medical attention.
    The biggest mistake Hitler made. It is possible that had Germany had stayed focused on England, the U.S. would have had a more difficult time because the invasion of France would not have been possible. The route to Berlin would have had to have been made from the East. Much tougher.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Well... I got the numbers from wikipedia... not the best source.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
    ...
    The Eastern Front was literally, Hell On Earth... except hell was hellishly freeazing ass. Many died from minor wounds and were too far from any type of medical attention.
    The biggest mistake Hitler made. It is possible that had Germany had stayed focused on England, the U.S. would have had a more difficult time because the invasion of France would not have been possible. The route to Berlin would have had to have been made from the East. Much tougher.

    Ultimately Hitler was probably the main reason why Germans lost the war. His decision to hit British cities instead of radar installations and air fields cost him the Battle of Britian. His decision to attack Russia while not entirely rendering the British inept and not counting on the US was also disasterous.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    mammasan wrote:
    Ultimately Hitler was probably the main reason why Germans lost the war. His decision to hit British cities instead of radar installations and air fields cost him the Battle of Britian. His decision to attack Russia while not entirely rendering the British inept and not counting on the US was also disasterous.
    ...
    It's a good thing the dude was all coked up... he made some monster bad decisions.
    Besides the ones you've mentioned...
    Regardng the Atlantic Wall... Ordering Rommel to keep his Panzer divisions out to the fight, even though Rommel believed that heavy armour closer to the invasion point was better than keeping his tanks closer to Paris. Rommel knew that Allied air superiority would devestate his armoured divisions once a beach head had been established. And keeping Rommel's forces at Calais 14 days after D-Day because he was sure the maing invasion would come through there.
    Demanding that the Me-262 become Germany's newest bomber instead of it's original designed use as a high altitude interceptor.
    ...
    It's a good thing he was the decider... not his military people.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    It's a good thing the dude was all coked up... he made some monster bad decisions.
    Besides the ones you've mentioned...
    Regardng the Atlantic Wall... Ordering Rommel to keep his Panzer divisions out to the fight, even though Rommel believed that heavy armour closer to the invasion point was better than keeping his tanks closer to Paris. Rommel knew that Allied air superiority would devestate his armoured divisions once a beach head had been established. And keeping Rommel's forces at Calais 14 days after D-Day because he was sure the maing invasion would come through there.
    Demanding that the Me-262 become Germany's newest bomber instead of it's original designed use as a high altitude interceptor.
    ...
    It's a good thing he was the decider... not his military people.

    It was definitely to our advantage that he was the decider. Can you imagine the outcome had Hitler listened to his military advisors. While I'm not taking anything away from the Russian, Canadien, British, US, and other troops who fought the German, if not for Hitler's utter stupidity the outcome could have been dramatically different.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    mammasan wrote:
    It was definitely to our advantage that he was the decider. Can you imagine the outcome had Hitler listened to his military advisors. While I'm not taking anything away from the Russian, Canadien, British, US, and other troops who fought the German, if not for Hitler's utter stupidity the outcome could have been dramatically different.
    ...
    Plus... look at the world leaders of that time. It just so happened that the right people (Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin) were in power when Hitler was. And I agree, 100%, the outcome might have well been completely different if Germany's military strategists made the calls... instead of Hitler.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Plus... look at the world leaders of that time. It just so happened that the right people (Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin) were in power when Hitler was. And I agree, 100%, the outcome might have well been completely different if Germany's military strategists made the calls... instead of Hitler.

    True. Had the allied powers had lesser men as leaders, though it pains me to label Stalin a great man, the outcome could have been different. All you have to do is look at how Britian dealt with Hitler while Chamberlain was at the helm and how they dealt with Hitler while Churchill was in charge.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Sign In or Register to comment.