A question for all a' yous' furriners

[TheEarl]

The English speaking countries of England, Canada and Australia who eagerly accepted the leadership of the United States in the depth of world war two, seem to have forgotten that the Japanese were in China and Malaysia and approaching the shores of Australia. That England and the empire was under siege around the world and even the Italians were Fascists.

'Accepted' the 'leadership' of the USA? <laughs uproariously>

As I've reminded you many times, the USA wasn't even the major player of the war. Without you - probably would still've ended up eventually with an Allied victory. Without Russia...

The Earl

 

[Guest]

'Accepted' the 'leadership' of the USA? <laughs uproariously>

As I've reminded you many times, the USA wasn't even the major player of the war. Without you - probably would still've ended up eventually with an Allied victory. Without Russia...

The Earl

27 million Russians...

 

[SummerMorning]

***I watched complete coverage of that disaster in Asia and from what I recall, military units from a US Naval fleet were first on the scene with helicopters. And although much was made of the 'dollar amount' first tendered by the United States, it turned out that the US Government in general and then the American people in specific donated a much larger amount than any other nation.

Hmm. Actually - you might be right there. Forgot about those helicopters. And I wasn't talking about the 'dollar amount' - the sad truth is that most of the money pledged will never actually be given. Of the money that will be given, much of it will be wasted, lost, misspent or stolen. *shrug*


***There are times, when the ingratitude for the United States, as expressed by you and others, irritates me and I feel called upon to defend.

Well, the thread *was* titled "A question for all you foreigners" and refered to how we see Creationism in America. Here, we see it as another sign of the sad state of your nation.

***If you had even a lick of sense you would look around, read a little history and send a warm greeting to Americans all over the world who have done so much for so many over the past century.

Actually... I could say a loud "Fuck America" for what it did for Yugoslavia, supporting Milosevic, directly and indirectly, allowing Serb nationalist forces to get away with genocide in Bosnia. Is that the kind of history you want me quoting, regarding how much America did? I have read more than a little history. Sure, America has done a lot of good things. But it has always played big power politics and it was always the little people who got hurt. Sure, other big powers played ugly too, but just because they played ugly doesn't mean I'm going to say you played o.k. Every single large political player in history has generally done rather nasty things to small players. And I am not about to stand and say "might makes right".

***One day the generous hand you keep biting may become a fist and put you in your proper place. Or better yet, withdraw and leave you to rot in the third world where you most likely belong anyway.

What generous hand are you talking about? I don't see it.

***amicus the american and damned proud of it...Bite me!

:lol:

 

[SummerMorning]

Lou, don't forget the rest of the Russians that died at the hands of their own leaders.

But yeah, in the final count - most of what the CCCP did in WW2 was good. Most of what it did immediately after was not so good.

 

[ChilledVodkaIV]

The English speaking countries of England, Canada and Australia

? America gave us the Engish language too? Why did no one tell me?

As for the second paragraph, Summer Morning, that was your attempt at humour, right? That science as it becomes more advanced is viewed as magic by the common folk? You can't really believe your own words? Really? Just how long have you used electricity and driven an automobile. Magic? get real!

amicus the intolerable

"... is indistuishable from magic." But you gotta believe in magic first.

 

[SummerMorning]

"... is indistuishable from magic." But you gotta believe in magic first.

Don't worry, magic believes in you.

 

[patrick1]

<< Patrick -- I think you are conflating evolution with sociobiology. Yes, there are few loose ends in the Theory of Evolution, but that does not mean that the overall theory is not quite sound. Creationists pick at a few of these loose ends against evolution, which is like pointing at a loos rivet on a Cessna and saying that this means that all airplanes cannot fly.

One of the problems with Creationism is that for them to ignore the enormous preponderance of evidence for evolution is to imply that God put all those fossils there and is lying to us. >>

Varode, this thread seems to have disappeared into a swamp in the few hours I've been away living my life. To return briefly to the topic, just to say, you're absolutely right, I'd meant to be more precise and ended up being less precise. I suppose I was trying to say that many advocates of evolutionary theory, not just sociobiologists (I believe they're often 'evolutionary psychologists' now, aren't they?), often go too far in what they can claim, and I think that excess can rebound.

All the same I'm convinced by evolutionary theory and find creationism part of a world-view that seeks to deny evidence, evidence that a majority of reasonable people (whether they're amicus, supporters or opponents of amicus, liberal, conservative and label-free alike) can all agree on.

patrick

 

[amicus]

? America gave us the Engish language too? Why did no one tell me?

nah, chilledvodkaIV, we just improved it, gonna work on French next, it needs a lot of help...

a smiling amicus skipping down the garden lane towards Paris...

 

[Guest]

? America gave us the Engish language too? Why did no one tell me?

nah, chilledvodkaIV, we just improved it, gonna work on French next, it needs a lot of help...

a smiling amicus skipping down the garden lane towards Paris...

That's probably the first time I've been made to feel almost sorry for the French.

Go get 'em, big boy!

 

[SummerMorning]

All the same I'm convinced by evolutionary theory and find creationism part of a world-view that seeks to deny evidence, evidence that a majority of reasonable people (whether they're amicus, supporters or opponents of amicus, liberal, conservative and label-free alike) can all agree on.

patrick

Amen to that!

 

[amicus]

'Accepted' the 'leadership' of the USA? <laughs uproariously>

As I've reminded you many times, the USA wasn't even the major player of the war. Without you - probably would still've ended up eventually with an Allied victory. Without Russia...

The Earl


--------------------

wasn't even a major player in world war two? No dire circumstances after Dunkirk and a totally German continent? The Blitz of London....the destruction of the royal navy, east and west? Rommel running amuck in Africa, Japanese at the doorstep in Australia...forget lend lease to the ruskies...forget the marshall plan afterwards, forget the cold war umbrella over europe provided by american dollars and american military....

perhaps you had your history book upside down or sumpin?

amicus...

 

[amicus]

"...That's probably the first time I've been made to feel almost sorry for the French.

Go get 'em, big boy!..."


thanks Lou! get a chuckle out of that...

 

[Liar]

a smiling amicus skipping down the garden lane towards Paris...

Why did the theme from Wizard of Oz just start playing in my head?

 

[kendo1]

I thought the Americans were late for the last two World Wars
I seem to remember us starting without them.

 

[amicus]

Kendo1....quite correct...one of the foreign policy planks of the United States was, "to not become entangled in foreign affairs..."

That was prevalent with President Wilson and less so with President Roosevelt in the late 1930's.

Of course the times have changed, Battleships and Aircraft Carriers have given way to interballistic missiles and nuclear weapons and it is cliche'ed but true to state that the world is a much smaller place.

The 'police actions' in Korea and Vietnam contained Communism and perhaps prevented a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union and China.

The Terrorist attack on America has somewhat changed the mindset of many. Now 'pre emptive' action to halt aggression before it begins is a considered policy change.

Perhaps had that policy been in effect in 1936, the 100 million people who died in world war two need not have.

who can know?

amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

wasn't even a major player in world war two? No dire circumstances after Dunkirk and a totally German continent? The Blitz of London....the destruction of the royal navy, east and west? Rommel running amuck in Africa, Japanese at the doorstep in Australia...forget lend lease to the ruskies...forget the marshall plan afterwards, forget the cold war umbrella over europe provided by american dollars and american military....

perhaps you had your history book upside down or sumpin?

amicus...

Only took two beaches of the 18 in the Normandy landings. Had almost no involvement in N.Africa and the invasion of Italy. The British made the U-boat capture and the Engima cracking and the code work and warned the US of a German attempt to ally with Mexico to invade California. You lost half a million soldiers if memory serves. Russia lost 27 million.

As for your generous money lending, I'm sure every Englishman will thank America for the generous credit you extended us when we were the only nation fighting the Nazi aggressors. We will certainly thank you for waiting until the war affected you personally till you joined in. We will also thank you for the fabulous interest rates that you charged us after both WW1 and WW2 that bankrupted our country for years. We will thank you for using that debt to screw us over Suez and side with the USSR and a tinpot dictator. We will thank you for trying to use that debt again to screw us over Hong Kong and Chiang Kai Shek, who had himself been screwed over by you the year before.

The USA is never anything but a shining beacon of altruism.

I've just worked it out. It's a Mary-Sue. Your world view is a story with America as the Mary-Sue <laughs>. Can't believe I'd not realised that before.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Kendo1....quite correct...one of the foreign policy planks of the United States was, "to not become entangled in foreign affairs..."

That was prevalent with President Wilson and less so with President Roosevelt in the late 1930's.

Of course the times have changed, Battleships and Aircraft Carriers have given way to interballistic missiles and nuclear weapons and it is cliche'ed but true to state that the world is a much smaller place.

The 'police actions' in Korea and Vietnam contained Communism and perhaps prevented a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union and China.

The Terrorist attack on America has somewhat changed the mindset of many. Now 'pre emptive' action to halt aggression before it begins is a considered policy change.

Perhaps had that policy been in effect in 1936, the 100 million people who died in world war two need not have.

who can know?

amicus...

Or if Woodrow Wilson hadn't interfered with the Balkan and middle European politics that he knew so little about after WW1, there wouldn't have been a WW2?

The Earl

 

[Liar]

The Terrorist attack on America has somewhat changed the mindset of many. Now 'pre emptive' action to halt aggression before it begins is a considered policy change.

I read a rather interresting paper about this recently. It talked about key defining moments in cultures.

In short terms, the reason Europens and Americans have had a harder and harder time understanding and agreeing with each other lately is because we have different key defining moments.

The latest defining moment for an average european is the fall of the Berlin wall. This is what have impacted us the most in the last 25 years. It drew new borders, erased others and caused a series of revolutions in our own back yard. A whole string of new democracies, the fall of communism, the unification of Germany (and it's symbolic removal of the stitches of WWII). In general, and especially with the Balkan conflict behind us, we see a world at peace.

The latest defining moment in the collective mind of the Americans is of course the 9/11 attack. Which brings with it a whole deck of fear cards and direct enemies. You have the exotic nemesis, the whole wartime saga, the constand threat level and a personal perspective of being under attack So in general, you see a world at war.



There was some really interresting stuff there. I'm gonna see if I can find an english translation of it, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[TheEarl]

Liar: If you find a translation, do put a link up on here or PM it to me. I'd love to read that.

The Earl

 

[Subo97]

As a science teacher, I just shake my head, refuse to give in, and teach Evolution anyway.

The sad part is that Americans at times seem to cherish ignorance. Whether there was an intelligent design or not, evolutionary forces have created the world in which we live and the species of which we are a part. That's the reality. The sad part is that so many people in this world are afraid of reality becuse they would have to think in order to maintain their world views. Science is not alone here. American children and most of their parents are also woefully ignorant of geography, history, math, art and economics. There are notable exceptions. I teach to them and any student who wants to learn. ( some of my most inspiring moments as a teacher have been with my special ed kids) I accept the fact, that many people just don't want to learn. It's risky. It might mean I won't be able to think like I did yesterday. I've become addicted to the thrill of learning, but not everybody does. Whether my fellow Americans in Kansas believe in evolution or not, we evolved.

By the way, America is a great place, filled with great people but, like the chinese, we go through periods of retrenchment like the one we're in now, then we follow it up with periods of outreach and progress. This fundamentalist revival can't last. It's not based on reality. Like all fundamentalism, it's self destructive.

Me, it doesn't matter what they say. I practice my religion at home and teach Darwin in the classroom and leave God out of it. Taking him out of the textbook doesn't unwrite Darwin. The cat's out of the bag.

 

[kendo1]

World News!
World Basketball!
World Football!
etc., etc.
Always makes me laugh.
The world stops at the coast.
Do they teach geography in the US?

 

[Subo97]

Yes, we do. They just don't pay attention to that either,lol.

 

[amicus]

The Earl, for reasons undisclosed seems intent on demeaning the history of the United States in world war two and in other areas of contention.

I have included the links so that you may see the subtle means by which theEarl and others obfuscate fact to support an argument.



Hundreds of amphibious ships and craft, supported by combatant warships, crossed the English Channel behind dozens of minesweepers. They arrived off the beaches before dawn. Three divisions of paratroopers (two American, one British) had already been dropped inland. Following a brief bombardment by ships' guns, Soldiers of six divisions (three American, two British and one Canadian) stormed ashore in five main landing areas, named "Utah", "Omaha", "Gold", "Juno" and "Sword." After hard fighting, especially on "Omaha" Beach, by day's end a foothold was well established."

http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/library/Divisions/Government/DDay.html

An invading army had not crossed the unpredictable, dangerous English Channel since 1688 -- and once the massive force set out, there was no turning back. The 5000-vessel armada stretched as far as the eye could see, transporting over 150,000 men and nearly 30,000 vehicles across the channel to the French beaches. Six parachute regiments -- over 13,000 men -- were flown from nine British airfields in over 800 planes. More than 300 planes dropped 13,000 bombs over coastal Normandy immediately in advance of the invasion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/dday/sfeature/sf_info.html

How many Allied troops were involved in D-Day?
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 43,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1148117/posts


~~~~~



You can easily see there were more American troops than any other nationality.

If you research deeper you can find that American aircraft, American ships, and American equipment also outnumbered the efforts of any other country.

It is sad when the need to win an argument includes inaccuracies and suppositions. This of course indicts the poster on every assertion made.


amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

The Earl, for reasons undisclosed seems intent on demeaning the history of the United States in world war two and in other areas of contention.

Nope. Not my agenda. I just like people to be truthful about things instead of parading their country's history like they're the greatest thing since sliced bread and are infinitely superior to any other nation.

How many Allied troops were involved in D-Day?
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 43,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1148117/posts


~~~~~



You can easily see there were more American troops than any other nationality.

If you research deeper you can find that American aircraft, American ships, and American equipment also outnumbered the efforts of any other country.

It is sad when the need to win an argument includes inaccuracies and suppositions. This of course indicts the poster on every assertion made.


amicus...

So, there were more general Allies troops than Americans on D-Day (by your figures). 27 million Russians were killed on the Eastern front. The armies of Rommel and Montgomery were fighting in North Africa. Where have I resorted to innacuracies or suppositions?

I said that America only took two beaches in D-Day. you've confirmed it. I said that America were had troops on that font in Europe. I've said that the Russians lost 27 million men compared to America's 500,000 (that includes the war with Japan). And in looking through things, I discovered that China lost 11,000,000 fighting the Japanese as well. I've made points that seem to oppose your world view that America came in and saved us all.

Please disprove me and please bring out your evidence that the USA swooped down and led the rest of the world out of its crisis that never could've been solved without them. Personally, given the choice, I'd say Russia caused far more damage to the Nazi war effort than anyone else and without them everything would've been lost.

But you have evidence that proves the USA was the country who saved Europe. Do enlighten us.

The Earl

 

[blackhaus7]

Nope. Not my agenda. I just like people to be truthful about things instead of parading their country's history like they're the greatest thing since sliced bread and are infinitely superior to any other nation.



So, there were more general Allies troops than Americans on D-Day (by your figures). 27 million Russians were killed on the Eastern front. The armies of Rommel and Montgomery were fighting in North Africa. Where have I resorted to innacuracies or suppositions?

I said that America only took two beaches in D-Day. you've confirmed it. I said that America were had troops on that font in Europe. I've said that the Russians lost 27 million men compared to America's 500,000 (that includes the war with Japan). And in looking through things, I discovered that China lost 11,000,000 fighting the Japanese as well. I've made points that seem to oppose your world view that America came in and saved us all.

Please disprove me and please bring out your evidence that the USA swooped down and led the rest of the world out of its crisis that never could've been solved without them. Personally, given the choice, I'd say Russia caused far more damage to the Nazi war effort than anyone else and without them everything would've been lost.

But you have evidence that proves the USA was the country who saved Europe. Do enlighten us.

The Earl

I, in no way, shape, manner or form, wish to align myself with amicus, so I want to make a couple of points without necessarily supporting his viewpoint.

The attributes that I have been taught that most affected the outcome of WWII were the isolation and industrial capacity of the United States. By not defending actual homeland, industry remained untouched with nothing to stop the increase in capacity. Because of this, the United States was the only country with the resources to fight a two front war successfully.

Let's examine the premise of removing the United States from the conflict. Japan attacks the USSR from the east creating a two front war that the USSR cannot sustain. I could effectively argue that it would go the same route it went in WWI and imploded. The reason the USSR lost 27 million is because men was its only resouce at one point and human waves were sent against tanks. That tactic would not hold up in a two front war.

However, if you remove the USSR from the conflict, the argument can be made that the outcome would have remained the same but with a much longer timeline.
The Normandy invasion would have occurred at a much later date and the question is thrown in as to if the atomic bomb would have been used against Germany. A not unlikely scenario.

The loss of either of the two Allies would have left a particularly ugly mess. And since the debate is framed as I understand it "Resolved, the USSR was a major player in WWII and the United States was not". Ball is in your court.