the dynamite politics thread

[Villain]

you think the war would have been won in exactly the same without any american troops there?

Yes. The whole WWII was decided on the Eastern Front between Germany and the Soviet Union. I have proved this thing here through numbers at least twice - you need to do the searching here by yourself this time. Every serious military historian KNOWS that without the Soviet Union the Nazi-German empire would have won the war. What the US did, was give supply to Soviet troops that did the fighting. More than 90% of European Axis soldiers died on the eastern front.

The war would have ended with the fall of Berlin in late 1945 even if the whole contined of North-America would have disappeared into a black hole in, say, 1935. What the Americans (and all the other non-Soviet allied countries) did was that the war ended sooner because of them - I give a full month for all the Western Front operations combined (Normandy, Anvil, Cobra, Bulge, etc.) and two months for the supply the USA gave to the Soviets during the war (especially the trucks that gave the Russians the mobility they lacked). However, had the Soviets not crushed the Germans, the Nazi-Empire would still probably stand today.

Now, as I have stated previously, the actions of the Western Allies were not entirely insignificant - they "saved" the western Europe from the hands of the Soviet Union (it has been claimed that Patton even "unofficially" admitted that it was the true goal of the whole invasion of Normandy), who would have overrun France, Italy, etc. right after conquering Germany. From the hands of the Nazi-Germans, however, Europe was indeed "saved" by the communist Soviet Union.

Now, regarding the silly idea of a "massive conspiracy theory" behind the history books as they are written by Western historians - you should actually read some and see how many of them do agree with me here. The myth of "Americans saving the Europe" that was created (largely by Hollywood) immediately after the war was done simply because admitting that the "evil" Soviet Union "saved" the Europe would have been a bad move in the ongoing political war against communism in that time.

However, long before the fall of the Soviet Union (at least by early 80's on), many western historians have clearly stated that the significance of Soviet war efforts was largely downplayed by all western accounts (and especially by Hollywood). The current uprising of nationality in the States has probably silenced all such voices, but at least during the last decade they could be clearly heard.

This is a topic I love to argue about, but if you really disagree with me, please state clearly where and why, so that I can come up with references that will crush your whole world-view.

-Villain

PS: Oh, and regarding the similarity of current-day USA and late-1930's Germany, there are HUGE parallels, IMHO - but this is the area that will lead to an unavoidable flamewar, so I don't wish to go there (again).

 

[Villain]

and how does spending billions upon billions of dollars on a war effort sustain an economy??? your understanding of economics seems a little .....backwards!

Quite the contrary - your understanding is the one that is lacking here.

First of all, I have read from newspapers that many economists have foreseen that this short war will indeed have a big reviving effect on the US economics. Explaining exactly how is impossible to me, as I don't quite understand it myself (or the arguments some other economists have against it). Regardless, it is clear that there are people who believe that this war has helped the US economy a lot.

Secondly, the two largest powers in the USA are the Oil and Military industries. They are the ones who decide the outcomes of the elections (the Bush campaign cost hundreds of millions of dollars and without the support of these groups, it would never had succeeded) and whether or not the country will and can go to war.

Estimating the benefits these industries are reaping during a war is hard, as finding clear numbers is nearly impossible (for me, at least - as I lack all access to reliable sources in this matter). However, some numbers that circulate in the net for the benefits of individual weapons companies during the previous Gulf-war run indeed in billions.

Now, as you should realize, that money comes from the US government - and in the end is taken from the taxpayers. The USA is the country with the highest differences between the social classes in the western world, whereas the taxing there is rather mild. Thus, the ones who pay the bill are those, who never had much to begin with. And those who benefict from all this are the people behind the weapons-industry, who make billions by manufacturing the weapons. And with that money, new elections are bought and the wheels keep turning...

About the oil, the USA is definitely NOT self-sufficient in the long run. USA is the biggest oil-importer in the world and North American natural reserves are a fraction of those in many near-east countries (like for example, Afghanistan or Iraq). Now, mere oil would probably not be a big enough reason for the Americans to attack any given country (otherwise they would be bombarding Saudi-Arabia already), but to say that they are not benefitting billions of dollars just by conquering the oil-fields of Iraq is ridiculous.

Just for a comparison: The Nazi-Germany sent millions of men to fight (and die) to southern Soviet Union in the summer of 1942 because of the Caucasian oil fields that provide about 1% of oil-production in the world. Many historians have said that had the Germans conquered those oil-fields, they would probably have won the war.

-Villain

 

[veil the sky]

This is a topic I love to argue about, but if you really disagree with me, please state clearly where and why, so that I can come up with references that will crush your whole world-view.

-Villain

don't worry you couldn't possibly crush my entire world view. i seriously doubt you'd be able to crush my most meagre inclination but good luck all the same!

Yes. The whole WWII was decided on the Eastern Front between Germany and the Soviet Union. I have proved this thing here through numbers at least twice - you need to do the searching here by yourself this time. Every serious military historian KNOWS that without the Soviet Union the Nazi-German empire would have won the war. What the US did, was give supply to Soviet troops that did the fighting. More than 90% of European Axis soldiers died on the eastern front.

no it wasn't. and you admit this later in your own post, the eastern front was highly significant yes, as was naieve nazi military strategy employed against the russians, it doesn't follow that 'the whole war was decided on the eastern front' because it can be argued to be a vital constituent. i'm a bit concerned by your logic here....

you've somewhere got the impression that i have called the involvement of Russia in the second world war insignificant..... where have you read this? my point was that the americans made a positive contribution to the war effort in WWII in response to Salamurhaaja's bizarre ideas about what constitutes constructive foreign policy. my point is, as i can see you agree, that the US contribution was highly effective. hence, we can't reasonably say that no country should ever get involved in military campaigns in other parts of the world.

and i'm sure you don't actually believe that you can prove the possible outcome of an alternative course of history through purely statistical analysis

The war would have ended with the fall of Berlin in late 1945 even if the whole contined of North-America would have disappeared into a black hole in, say, 1935. What the Americans (and all the other non-Soviet allied countries) did was that the war ended sooner because of them - I give a full month for all the Western Front operations combined (Normandy, Anvil, Cobra, Bulge, etc.) and two months for the supply the USA gave to the Soviets during the war (especially the trucks that gave the Russians the mobility they lacked). However, had the Soviets not crushed the Germans, the Nazi-Empire would still probably stand today.

bizzare bizzare use of miltary statistical analysis again here! and the same logical blunder. you haven't taken into account the extra resources the nazis would have had available had they met no resistance on the western front, both material and human. in any case none of this is anything i am remotely interested in debating. it has nothing to do with what i was talking about, if anyone else is interesting in taking up the debate as to how long the war would have lasted and who would have won without american, and now it seems you are arguing British military efforts then feel free!

Now, as I have stated previously, the actions of the Western Allies were not entirely insignificant - they "saved" the western Europe from the hands of the Soviet Union (it has been claimed that Patton even "unofficially" admitted that it was the true goal of the whole invasion of Normandy), who would have overrun France, Italy, etc. right after conquering Germany. From the hands of the Nazi-Germans, however, Europe was indeed "saved" by the communist Soviet Union.[/quoute]

so the west didn't have the military strength to have any significant impact on nazi military campaigns, but they did have enough to stop a russian campaign, but it was the russians who had the military strength to defeat the nazis single handedly....... i'm a bit dubious about what kind of statistics could really back up a claim this clearly counter-intuitive.

and now you are denying that there was american, british or canadian military presence in the fall of germany?????? my god i must have been reading some outrageous historical propaganda and seen some elaborate video hoaxes!!!!

Now, regarding the silly idea of a "massive conspiracy theory" behind the history books as they are written by Western historians - you should actually read some and see how many of them do agree with me here. The myth of "Americans saving the Europe" that was created (largely by Hollywood) immediately after the war was done simply because admitting that the "evil" Soviet Union "saved" the Europe would have been a bad move in the ongoing political war against communism in that time.

and finally on to the patronising, condescending arrogance of the 'why don't you read some books' retort. equally important points about being able to read critically being entirely forgotten again here. the myth of 'americans saving europe' is not one i have ever subscirbed to nor even ever heard of, so there's no need to preach to me. i'm perfectly aware of anti-communist hysteria of post war america, i'm not really so stupid as to think that they aren't capable of propaganda but hey! no-one does propaganda quite like the communists! it's an absolute necessity in a monolithic political system.

PS: Oh, and regarding the similarity of current-day USA and late-1930's Germany, there are HUGE parallels, IMHO - but this is the area that will lead to an unavoidable flamewar, so I don't wish to go there (again).

good! don't! unbelievable hype nonsense in the new world of anti-americanism......

 

[veil the sky]

Quite the contrary - your understanding is the one that is lacking here.

First of all, I have read from newspapers that many economists have foreseen that this short war will indeed have a big reviving effect on the US economics. Explaining exactly how is impossible to me, as I don't quite understand it myself (or the arguments some other economists have against it). Regardless, it is clear that there are people who believe that this war has helped the US economy a lot.

so your argument is that you read somewhere someone who said something that was the opposite of what i said ......but you didn't understand it. is this supposed to be an argument? and the other is that there are a lot of people who think it might benefit them economically, so, by your own admission without understanding why, you will choose to side with them. and you start by telling me my understading is lacking!!!!!

my point is that for the argument that this entire war is being fought for oil, there is a paucity of evidence. and what there is can be easily refuted. if the us wanted cheaper oil. there are far cheaper ways to do it than spend billions on a war. not that the US needs more and cheaper oil, and not that even if they did, this would benefit the other coalition countries would benefit at all (oh look, here comes the 'the uk is the lapdog' argument :Smug: )

Secondly, the two largest powers in the USA are the Oil and Military industries. They are the ones who decide the outcomes of the elections (the Bush campaign cost hundreds of millions of dollars and without the support of these groups, it would never had succeeded) and whether or not the country will and can go to war.

and the american oil industry says. we need cheaper oil to lower our market value!!!! classic!!!!! and no wait there's more ....the military want to send their soldiers out to die for it!!!!

the army doesn't decide when to go to war. the government does.

Estimating the benefits these industries are reaping during a war is hard, as finding clear numbers is nearly impossible (for me, at least - as I lack all access to reliable sources in this matter). However, some numbers that circulate in the net for the benefits of individual weapons companies during the previous Gulf-war run indeed in billions.

oh seriously! talk about plucking a number out of the air!!

and listen once and for all. even if there is economic benefit from the war. who cares!?!?! why is it a bad thing??? if the hippies who wave anti-war boards because they think we are doing it for oil really have such a problem, i'd like to see them stop putting petrol in their cars, and stop using electricity becuase .....guess what ......they are powered by oil!!

the reason we invaded iraq is to oust the baathist regime because of their non-compliance with resolution 1441. this has been stated ad nauseam by the coalition and the pro-war camp. have you noticed also who exactly it is who think we are doing it for the oil??? well absolutely none of them are politicians!! the UN reluctance about going to war had nothing to do with the fact they thought we might be doing it for oil. it's just the old chestnut! the same people all said we were going to war for the oil when we liberated kuwait! and do we have free oil after operation desert storm? let me check ......no i still pay for petrol ....actually i pay a lot more. and will oil and petrol be free after this war? no of course it bloosy wont. will iraq still be paid billions and billions of dollars or euros or sterling for the oil they do produce?.... yes of course they will.

About the oil, the USA is definitely NOT self-sufficient in the long run. USA is the biggest oil-importer in the world and North American natural reserves are a fraction of those in many near-east countries (like for example, Afghanistan or Iraq). Now, mere oil would probably not be a big enough reason for the Americans to attack any given country (otherwise they would be bombarding Saudi-Arabia already), but to say that they are not benefitting billions of dollars just by conquering the oil-fields of Iraq is ridiculous.

it's the biggest importer because it is the biggest consumer and has the most competitive economy. it has enough oil reserves to be self sufficient. and i see you've found those statistics to justify the claim that they are benefitting by billions of dollars!......... how? and even if for sake of argument they were....... so what? and then why are the rest of the coalition fighting the war?

Just for a comparison: The Nazi-Germany sent millions of men to fight (and die) to southern Soviet Union in the summer of 1942 because of the Caucasian oil fields that provide about 1% of oil-production in the world. Many historians have said that had the Germans conquered those oil-fields, they would probably have won the war.

-Villain

so lets just clarify. you think the US is conquering oil fields in a bid to establish world domination?


and do ALL of you people think that the american troops are going to fly home with all the iraqi oil in their pockets? how exactly are they getting it for themselves?

 

[Salamurhaaja]

and the american oil industry says. we need cheaper oil to lower our market value!!!! classic!!!!! and no wait there's more ....the military want to send their soldiers out to die for it!!!!

the army doesn't decide when to go to war. the government does.

Since you seem to lack the education to read, I will make this a bit more
clear, government decides that the country goes to war-> governments
are bought by oil and arms industries (trust me, they can afford it) and
all of a sudden the government decides to go to war, how odd, isn't it.

Btw, just trying to contradict everything someone says is not discussion
and before you learn that, not to mention read some books and remove
your head from the ass of the americans, you will be ignored, it's
pointless to try to prove anything to you, since you don't seem to even
know how to read.

 

[veil the sky]

do you actually know how to make points or are you just confined to laughable personal insults?

if you want to have some sort of contest in name calling just let me know. you'll lose that too.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

and listen once and for all. even if there is economic benefit from the war. who cares!?!?! why is it a bad thing??? if the hippies who wave anti-war boards because they think we are doing it for oil really have such a problem, i'd like to see them stop putting petrol in their cars, and stop using electricity becuase .....guess what ......they are powered by oil!!

Listen MORON, there IS economic benefits from war, if you don't see
that then you truly are a bigger idiot than what you already appear to
be and that is not a small feat, cos you appear HUGELY idiotic right now.

And yes, it is a bad thing and since you don't care, get the fuck out
off this board, cos you are in the minority.

And what the fuck have I been saying about THEM using petrol, USA
is the biggest user of oil in the world and why, cos they need to use
their SUVs to drive their fat asses to the McPoison 200m away from
their house, all the while leaving the house lit up like some fucking
x-mas tree, in the middle of day, you are right, they do use oil.

 

[veil the sky]

/\
I angry child

it's got to the point where i really have no idea what you are talking about!!

 

[rahvin]

tell me i didn't just read that those in the minority should get the fuck out of this board, please.

while you're at it, also kindly tell me that you can have political discussions without name-calling.

edit: no, let's add some more. any serious public place would first start off by ignoring those that cannot make a point - regardless of its validity - without being childishly disrespectful towards the opposite point of view, not by ignoring those who express one. i don't know about everybody else, but i intend to behave like this is a serious public place.


rahvin.

 

[rahvin]

And what the fuck have I been saying about THEM using petrol, USA
is the biggest user of oil in the world and why, cos they need to use
their SUVs to drive their fat asses to the McPoison 200m away from
their house, all the while leaving the house lit up like some fucking
x-mas tree, in the middle of day, you are right, they do use oil.

this seems to imply you - and all those who don't eat at macdonald or leave a light on - do not use oil. i happen to disagree until proven otherwise.

rahvin.

 

[zodi]

Nah, keep it like this -- finally politics is fun to watch

 

[Villain]

I'll do a huge amount of clipping from your text to address each individual opinion and / or display of silliness (there are plenty of both in your posts) without bothering to use the quote-option. Thus, you need to find the contexts from the previous posts.

"no it wasn't. and you admit this later in your own post"

WTF! I admit what?!? The point I made was that the American contribution to the result of the Second World War was extremely insignificant in scale, comparable to the Australian contribution to this war in Iraq, or to the Portuguese contribution to the First World War.

"the eastern front was highly significant yes, as was naieve nazi military strategy employed against the russians, it doesn't follow that 'the whole war was decided on the eastern front' because it can be argued to be a vital constituent."

But there were no other vital constituents - the WWII was decided on the eastern front, period. If you disagree, I want some precise arguments (I have stated mine in previous posts - I can go digging, if you wish).

"i'm a bit concerned by your logic here...."

Took the words from my mouth...

"you've somewhere got the impression that i have called the involvement of Russia in the second world war insignificant....."

No. I have got the impression that you think the involvement of USA in the WWII was significant - it was not, as the only signficant participants of that war were Germany and USSR (no Russia in that time).

"my point was that the americans made a positive contribution to the war effort in WWII in response to Salamurhaaja's bizarre ideas about what constitutes constructive foreign policy. my point is, as i can see you agree, that the US contribution was highly effective."

Again, WTF! Read my previous post once again, please. US contibution was extremely insignificant, I daresay Highly effective my ass...

"hence, we can't reasonably say that no country should ever get involved in military campaigns in other parts of the world."

And here I must question your logic once again, even if you lived in the illusion that the US contribution had any effect. Let's say the participation of France in the late 19th century African civil-wars had affected the results of those wars - does that give France the reason, justification or right to participate in, say, current Arab-Israeli conflict? I don't think so and I'd like to know your arguments as to why it should.

"and i'm sure you don't actually believe that you can prove the possible outcome of an alternative course of history through purely statistical analysis "

I don't - something called common sense helps me here. You should try it sometimes yourself.

"bizzare bizzare use of miltary statistical analysis again here! and the same logical blunder. you haven't taken into account the extra resources the nazis would have had available had they met no resistance on the western front, both material and human."

But I have - the amount of German troops and materiel on the western front would never had even significantly slowed down the Soviet steamroller in 1944, not to mention stopped it, if they were used in the east instead - I "gave" them the month I mentioned in my previous post mainly because the Soviet strategy would probably had been more cautious had those units been there. I can dig up the numbers, if you wish to see them yourself, but it seems you detest all kinds of factual information, so I won't bother unless you ask. And if you have troubles understanding my point (as hinted by your repeated use of the word bizarre), I'm sorry but I can't help you - the vast majority of people over ten year old can get my point quite easily, so I guess it's just in you.

"in any case none of this is anything i am remotely interested in debating. it has nothing to do with what i was talking about"

Yet you specifically asked Salamurhaaja to argue with you about this matter ("why don't you enlighten me? you think the war would have been won in exactly the same without any american troops there?"), after he had made the reference to my posts - may I ask you why? It appears as if you ran out arguments to back up your main point and thought to divert the discussion to this topic - and now that you realize you are the underdog here as well, you try to claim that you were never interested in this matter. If that's not the case, I'd like to have an explanation.

"if anyone else is interesting in taking up the debate as to how long the war would have lasted and who would have won without american, and now it seems you are arguing British military efforts then feel free! "

So, I guess the record here is now about:
Villain: 3
Those who think USA affected the outcome of WWII: 0

(And damn this is easy - you should see the threads on certain war-game forums where this same topic has arisen time and again - those guys can at least come up with reasonable arguments against those of mine )

"and finally on to the patronising, condescending arrogance of the 'why don't you read some books' retort. equally important points about being able to read critically being entirely forgotten again here."

Not being mentioned does not equal to entirely forgotten in my book. And regarding the history-books, you are the one who brought them up in the first place - thus my request for you to read them does not seem unreasonable to me.

"the myth of 'americans saving europe' is not one i have ever subscirbed to nor even ever heard of, so there's no need to preach to me."

Here I was indeed mistaken and I must apologize. However, concerning some previous posts about the subject in this forum and the perceived attitude in your question to Salamurhaaja, I don't think my assumption was made out of thin air in the first place.

"i'm perfectly aware of anti-communist hysteria of post war america, i'm not really so stupid as to think that they aren't capable of propaganda but hey! no-one does propaganda quite like the communists! it's an absolute necessity in a monolithic political system."

Well, here we agree (for a change).

"good! don't! unbelievable hype nonsense in the new world of anti-americanism...."

...which is very similar in nature to the anti-communist hype nonsense of the 70's-80's in Europe. And do you think they were right?

I'll get into your other post later, I have other matters going on now.

-Villain

 

[Villain]

Oh, and Salmy: Here, let me carry the ball for a while - you have really done more than your share here already. You can go and play a few games of Quake or something else that lets the steam out from your head. Come back to this thread once there's no danger of you punching through the monitor.

Or go see some hentai-anime - it works for me pretty damn well nowadays.

-Villain

 

[rahvin]

Oh, and Salmy: Here, let me carry the ball for a while - you have really done more than your share here already. You can go and play a few games of Quake or something else that lets the steam out from your head. Come back to this thread once there's no danger of you punching through the monitor.

Or go see some hentai-anime - it works for me pretty damn well nowadays.

-Villain

i usually hug my teddy and say sweet words to him.
or play enclave.

rahvin.

 

[hyena]

@villain: i am a hentai fan too, although i cant seem to find anything funny lately. care to recommend? the more unbelievable and idiotic, the more i like it...

 

[veil the sky]

I'll do a huge amount of clipping from your text to address each individual opinion and / or display of silliness (there are plenty of both in your posts) without bothering to use the quote-option. Thus, you need to find the contexts from the previous posts.

good start! get those personals in first!

WTF! I admit what?!? The point I made was that the American contribution to the result of the Second World War was extremely insignificant in scale, comparable to the Australian contribution to this war in Iraq, or to the Portuguese contribution to the First World War.

"The whole WWII was decided on the Eastern Front between Germany and the Soviet Union" you later admit to be an exaggeration or 'lie' by saying "What the Americans (and all the other non-Soviet allied countries) did was that the war ended sooner because of them." even if i were to grant that the entire war was won on the eastern front, it has to be called a co-operative effort at least, given that there is contribution from western allies. the original claim would imply that the rest of the world sat back and did nothing, watching the soviets and the germans fight it out til somebody won. this, i am arguing, and you implicitly concede in the second statement is at least an unnecessary simplification of events. you seem determined that there are two versions of events i.e. 'the west won the war on their own' and 'the east won the war on their own' and we have to adhere to one of the above. i don't think this is necessary, hence your simplifications i can reject.

But there were no other vital constituents - the WWII was decided on the eastern front, period. If you disagree, I want some precise arguments (I have stated mine in previous posts - I can go digging, if you wish).

you can't write "the WWII was decided on the eastern front, period" and then tell me i have to provide precise arguments!!! classic!!! you don't have to dig don't worry. i'm really not interested in this topic at all. it's a complete tangent and a pointless historical excersice in retrospective if you ask me! "who deserves all the credit for WWII??" .....i don't care. we won!

"i'm a bit concerned by your logic here...."

Took the words from my mouth...

.............great! :Spin:

No. I have got the impression that you think the involvement of USA in the WWII was significant - it was not, as the only signficant participants of that war were Germany and USSR (no Russia in that time).

no russia!!! i know what you're getting at here. russia was a part of the USSR under the stalinist regime, but still had national independence from the others. the baltic states, although formidable military powers with a particularly skilled army, needed the resource of russia herself to give them a chance to resist the germans. like i said my knowledge of east european military history isn't great and i'm not interested in this debate, but what this comes down to is your and my understanding of what constitutes "significant". to make my point i needn't establish even that the second world war would have been won without US intervention, only that 'foreign military intervention outside of a direct and current threat to your own national security can be beneficial'. the only reason that you have become involved in this debate is because someone mentioned your name, and the only reason we are on this topic is because it is apparently a special interest of yours.

Again, WTF! Read my previous post once again, please. US contibution was extremely insignificant, I daresay Highly effective my ass...

not interested. sorry! nothing to do with any of my points.

"hence, we can't reasonably say that no country should ever get involved in military campaigns in other parts of the world."

And here I must question your logic once again, even if you lived in the illusion that the US contribution had any effect. Let's say the participation of France in the late 19th century African civil-wars had affected the results of those wars - does that give France the reason, justification or right to participate in, say, current Arab-Israeli conflict? I don't think so and I'd like to know your arguments as to why it should.

what? that's known as 'a total tangent!'

once more

my point is here:

the US became involved in a military way in WWII.

regardless of your opinions on the efficacy of the contribution or whether it qualifies for you as 'significant' or 'vital to victory', the contribution was there. from our historical perspective, and to my best guess the same can be said for those in the allied countries at the time, we don't have a moral grievance against the US for becoming involved/contributing to a military effort which was on the other side of the world in this case. the logical conclusion being the moral claim that 'military involvement without direct, current threat to sovereignty or state' can be morally permissible.

if i could write propositional or hegelian logic notation onto this forum then i might be able to illustrate it graphically, but i'll have to leave it to a syllogism:

1) the US made a positive military contribution to a foreign war effort which did not pose a direct, current threat to sovereignty or state (the WWII effort)
2) this military intervention was morally permissible
c) there are instances of military intervention in a conflict which does not pose a direct, current threat to sovereignty or state which are morally permissible

valid deductive inference.

I don't - something called common sense helps me here. You should try it sometimes yourself.

er ......but you did claim to have statistically proved that the war would have been won without US or western (any non Soviet that is) intervention here:

"Yes. The whole WWII was decided on the Eastern Front between Germany and the Soviet Union. I have proved this thing here through numbers at least twice "

i'm glad to see that you know that this isn't actually possible

But I have - the amount of German troops and materiel on the western front would never had even significantly slowed down the Soviet steamroller in 1944, not to mention stopped it, if they were used in the east instead - I "gave" them the month I mentioned in my previous post mainly because the Soviet strategy would probably had been more cautious had those units been there. I can dig up the numbers, if you wish to see them yourself, but it seems you detest all kinds of factual information, so I won't bother unless you ask. And if you have troubles understanding my point (as hinted by your repeated use of the word bizarre), I'm sorry but I can't help you - the vast majority of people over ten year old can get my point quite easily, so I guess it's just in you.

haha! name calling reaches an all time low! ten year olds can understand it but you cant i wish i could give you the gratification of being offended. nevermind eh

and no i'm glad you haven't bothered because as i have repeatedly said, i don't care about your military statistics. this is something you are interested in .....not me. i am making a moral point. you a historical/military one.

and a point to bear in mind in the future: just because someone disagrees with something you say, it doesn't mean that they don't understand it or that they lack the mental capacoty of a ten year old. believing and saying this puts you at risk of coming across as at least mildly arrogant. not everyone is as understanding as i am.

Yet you specifically asked Salamurhaaja to argue with you about this matter ("why don't you enlighten me? you think the war would have been won in exactly the same without any american troops there?"), after he had made the reference to my posts - may I ask you why? It appears as if you ran out arguments to back up your main point and thought to divert the discussion to this topic - and now that you realize you are the underdog here as well, you try to claim that you were never interested in this matter. If that's not the case, I'd like to have an explanation.

very well an explaination you will have.

no i don't believe that the war would have been won in exactly the same way without US involvement. there was, no matter that you don't think it to be particularly significant, a military contribution from the US. this is important because it helped us win the war. if you think that the sacrifice of any one of the soldiers, american, british, russian ....whatever, is insignificant then i think you are wrong. the human sacrifice is the most important thing any country can give to a war effort in times as desperate as the early forties.

i am interested in this point because it illustrates the validity of foreign military intervention on ideological grounds. furthermore in the absence of direct threat of invasion. it can be justified, and has been done in the past in instances which we would not instinctively, and do not call, morally reprehensible as acts of war. US intervention in WWII is an illustration of this happening.

i am not interested in the question as to whether the war would have been won without that US intervention. as i'm sure you can see this question is entirely moot with regard to my point of illustration.

i am also not interested in what you consider to be 'vital' or even 'significant' military statistical contributions. again these statistics are trivial to a moral claim.

So, I guess the record here is now about :
Villain: 3
Those who think USA affected the outcome of WWII: 0

(And damn this is easy - you should see the threads on certain war-game forums where this same topic has arisen time and again - those guys can at least come up with reasonable arguments against those of mine )

well it's not too hard to score 3 goals in an empty goal but you still get my congratulations. the kind of congratulations i'd give to a 'special needs' kid who learned to spell his own name, with a hint of patronisation, but congratulations nevertheless.

if you enjoy games to play by yourself you might get more satisfaction out of solitaire or something though. just a thought!

Not being mentioned does not equal to entirely forgotten in my book. And regarding the history-books, you are the one who brought them up in the first place - thus my request for you to read them does not seem unreasonable to me.

not equal to entirely forgotten, but it's absence was tactical in it's implications. i know what you're up to! i read what i'm interested in, which is mostly ancient greek philosophy and kant, a smattering of other philosophers that interest me. not the military statistical logs that ......don't.

and i'm sure you don't need me to tell you that my jibe about the conspiracy disposition was a rhetorical character illustration, not a factual assertion about historical texts. it wasn't an immature 'why don't you just go and read some books' panic attack.

...which is very similar in nature to the anti-communist hype nonsense of the 70's-80's in Europe. And do you think they were right?

ha! of course not! it's ridiculous! but so is the anti-americanism! they are both forms of bogotry which discourage personal opinion forming and rational consideration. i take it that since you agree, both forms should be discouraged.

 

[veil the sky]

@villain: i am a hentai fan too, although i cant seem to find anything funny lately. care to recommend? the more unbelievable and idiotic, the more i like it...

yeeey lets forget all the politics and go watch haitoku no shojo or la blue girl or something :Spin:

 

[Salamurhaaja]

@Veil
Hmmm, I don't quite get why you wanna make yourself look utterly
stupid here too, you mean to tell me the asskicking you too from Mis
on the Opeth board on this issue wasn't enough for you?

As for what comes to your "I don't care, we won!" statement, what is
it exactly that you "won"?
Take a look at the "winning" countries and then take a look at the
"losers", now odd, but to me it seems the losers are doing MUCH better,
tell me why and I give you a lollipop and a pat on the head.

Btw, it's quite funny that you called me "a liberal with a 10 year memory"
I asume you were speaking of Gulf War I, well, tell you what, at least I
was actively following the thing and not shitting my diapers and don't
even try to convince me that you were following the thing when you
were 11 years old.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

Well, I think it's about time to look at something else for a while, so
I present you with a little thing from Michael Moore's Book, Stupid
White Men:

We're Number One!

Among the top twenty industrialized nations, WE'RE number one!!

We're number one in millionaires.

We're number one in billionaires.

We're number one in military spending.

We're number one in firearm deaths.

We're number one in beef production.

We're number one in per capita energy use.

We're number one in carbon dioxide
emissions (more than Australia, Brazil,
Canada, France, India, Indonesia,
Germany, Italy, Mexico, and the United
Kingdom combined).

We're number one in total and per capita
municipal waste (720 kilograms per person
per year).

We're number one in hazardous waste
produced (by a factor of more than twenty
times our nearest competitor, Germany).

We're number one in oil consumption.

We're number one in natural gas
consumption.

We're number one in the least amount of
tax revenue generated (as a percentage of
gross domestic product).

We're number one in the least amount of
federal and state government expenditure
(as a percentage of GDP).

We're number one in budget deficit (as a
percentage of GDP).

We're number one in daily per capita
consumption of calories.

We're number one in lowest voter turnout.

We're number one in number of political
parties represented in the lower or single
house.

We're number one in recorded rapes (by a
factor of almost three times our nearest
competitor-Canada).

We're number one in injuries and deaths
from road accidents (almost twice as many
as runner-up Canada).

We're number one in births to mothers
under the age of twenty (again, more than
twice as many as Canada, and nearly twice
as many as number two New Zealand).

We're number one in the number of
international human rights treaties not
signed.

We're number one among countries in the
United Nations with a legally constituted
government to not ratify the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We're number one in number of known
executions of child offenders.

We're number one in likelihood of children
under the age of fifteen to die from gunfire.

We're number one in likelihood of children
under the age of fifteen to commit suicide
with a gun.

We're number one in lowest eighth-grade
math scores.

We're number one in becoming the first
society in history in which the poorest
group in the population are children.

All right and blahdi blah blah, I am sure he don't mind me using this to
educate you all, if you want his sources, go to the site, I can list
them too, if you absolutely want, but it's rather long, so I won't do it
in this post.

 

[wildfyr]

Salami seems to like to quote AMERICANS. how ironic.