The Student Room Group

Why Europe should thank the US

Scroll to see replies

Original post by DYKWIA
You didn't 'destroy pretty much everything said'. You made some stupid comments about our sports etc.


I detroyed every assertation you made, from Football being played by but a few third world nations to the UK forcing former colonies to keep the Monarchy in exchange for independence. You then had no response so decided to ignore me.

Original post by DYKWIA

About 130,000 Americans died fighting a petty war between empires. We had no moral obligations to enter the war and defend your oppressive empires and yet we did. So yes, we did save britain and France.


How exactly does the fact that 130,000 Yanks died proved that America saved Britain and France?
What won the Great War was A) Britain's naval blockade of Germany that starved it's industry and population, B) The defeat of Germany's Spring Offensive, chiefly by France at the Second Battle of the Marne and C) The Allied Hundred Days Offensive, during which British and Empire forces wiped the floor with the German army.
Only a Yank would turn the fact that their country's ill-trained, ill-equipped army rushed into battle using out dated tactics and payed a heavy price for it as somehow winning the war.
Reply 161
Original post by pol pot noodles
I detroyed every assertation you made, from Football being played by but a few third world nations to the UK forcing former colonies to keep the Monarchy in exchange for independence. You then had no response so decided to ignore me.


By football I take it you mean soccer... We don't play much professional soccer as it is treated as a kid's game or a backup for when you have nothing else to play. Soccer is seriously overrated.

How exactly does the fact that 130,000 Yanks died proved that America saved Britain and France?
What won the Great War was A) Britain's naval blockade of Germany that starved it's industry and population, B) The defeat of Germany's Spring Offensive, chiefly by France at the Second Battle of the Marne and C) The Allied Hundred Days Offensive, during which British and Empire forces wiped the floor with the German army.
Only a Yank would turn the fact that their country's ill-trained, ill-equipped army rushed into battle using out dated tactics and payed a heavy price for it as somehow winning the war.


Then how come when we entered the war you suddenly started winning? It must be a coincidence - twice. My point about how many of our troops died shows how much involvement we had in the war. With so many dead, you can't tell me we didn't play a pivotal role.
Original post by DYKWIA
Then how come when we entered the war you suddenly started winning?

That is simply not true... both times.
Original post by DYKWIA
Timber and seafood mainly.



That's why I originally created a 'UK should join the US' thread. I figured the EU was basically just like the US, so why not leave the lame one and join the best country in the world.



We have a very good education system. It ranks higher than britain's.



I think you are one of the worst people I've ever came across on and off the net. I feel sorry for you, I really do. For a person to actually be that mind bogglingly deluded to believe/say the stuff you do, it must be horrible.

As for the "leave the lame one" comment, I had to laugh. I am anti-EU but let's not class the USA as the "best country in the world" when it is in trillions of dollars worth of debt, it's military is severely under trained and thus extremely prone to mistakes, it's foreign policies basically equate to "if they don't agree, invade", it has a more than frightening gap between rich and poor (the poorer living in ghettos that would be classed as inhumane in Britain) and most of it's populace are religious psychopaths that agree with the republican way of life- anti abortion, anti homosexuality and basically anti anything that represents freedom. If that's what you class as "great" then you are welcome to it, my friend.
Reply 164
Original post by Blackburn_Allen
I think you are one of the worst people I've ever came across on and off the net. I feel sorry for you, I really do. For a person to actually be that mind bogglingly deluded to believe/say the stuff you do, it must be horrible.


I believe the US is great, so I must be deluded? No. I'm not.

As for the "leave the lame one" comment, I had to laugh. I am anti-EU but let's not class the USA as the "best country in the world" when it is in trillions of dollars worth of debt


Yes, because europe is doing so well financially. We are in so much debt partially because the EU is unable to control its spending. That's socialism in action for ya!

it's military is severely under trained and thus extremely prone to mistakes


We have the best military in the world, with the most advanced technology of any military ever.

it's foreign policies basically equate to "if they don't agree, invade"


You know that isn't true, but even if it was, is it really so bad when we bring freedom to many of these countries? I know it hasn't worked out in every country, but we don't have unlimited resources and sometimes intelligence can be wrong and we accidentally support a dictator.

it has a more than frightening gap between rich and poor (the poorer living in ghettos that would be classed as inhumane in Britain)


Not true, we have one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world and our gini coefficient isn't too bad. It is only one point above that of england's and so actually the poor in our country are not poor by your standards.

and most of it's populace are religious psychopaths that agree with the republican way of life- anti abortion, anti homosexuality and basically anti anything that represents freedom. If that's what you class as "great" then you are welcome to it, my friend.


No, they are just supportive of the family values that have been important since our country was founded. Republicans value hard work and reward for hard work. I don't actually agree with them on abortion issues and homosexuals are damaging to society.
Original post by DYKWIA
I believe the US is great, so I must be deluded? No. I'm not.



Yes, because europe is doing so well financially. We are in so much debt partially because the EU is unable to control its spending. That's socialism in action for ya!



We have the best military in the world, with the most advanced technology of any military ever.



You know that isn't true, but even if it was, is it really so bad when we bring freedom to many of these countries? I know it hasn't worked out in every country, but we don't have unlimited resources and sometimes intelligence can be wrong and we accidentally support a dictator.



Not true, we have one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world and our gini coefficient isn't too bad. It is only one point above that of england's and so actually the poor in our country are not poor by your standards.



No, they are just supportive of the family values that have been important since our country was founded. Republicans value hard work and reward for hard work. I don't actually agree with them on abortion issues and homosexuals are damaging to society.



I'm so bored of you already.

The "best military" in the world argument is a joke. You are going on what your own government tells you but the truth is completely different. I know about 5 people that have been/are in Afghanistan as we type on here. Many of them have had to give American soldiers extra training themselves, or prompt them on how to use certain pieces of equipment. The fact your military doesn't even train it's own soldiers on how to use the Javelin missile correctly bemuses me but I have to admit it's quite funny. We had a good old laugh watching helmet-cam footage of an American attempting to put on his body armour. I don't know if anyone has seen the infamous Balotelli bib scenario but if you have imagine that, only with a 60 pound vest.

I have grown up on one of the poorest estates in Britain. I was born in Blackburn, a town notorious for it's working class populace and lack of state funding and grew up in a forgotten estate in Birmingham. These are considered some of the worst places to live in England, yet I've been to America to visit family before and seen first hand the state of the projects over there. Let me tell you now, from someone who has seen both sides of the spectrum, there is no comparison between the "poorer" estates in England and the poorer estates in America. Don't lie to me and to yourself, moron.

"You know that isn't true, but even if it was, is it really so bad when we bring freedom to many of these countries?"

What?! Name me some countries you have brought a stable, free and democratic way of life too? I can't name one. You went into Vietnam blindly and brought nothing but death to both sides and destroyed most of Vietnam's beautiful landscape with Agent Orange (or whatever) in the process. Iraq is still feeling the effects of an unjust war in which we blindly supported on false pretenses. Afghanistan is about as free from terrorism and religious persecution as Iran.
Somalia? Well, that speaks for itself really. Need I go on?

The mission in Libya has been, on the large part, a success. But, oh, look who spearheaded that mission? Britain and France.

You haven't brought freedom anywhere. You've brought war, death and carnage in the name of democracy. Countries that need the "might" of the USA (who consider themselves as the police of the world) don't get it, probably due to it's lack of oil. Where is your presence in Zimbabwe? In fact, where is your presence in the most of Africa?

Britain doesn't claim to be this step ladder to greatness that brings freedom wherever it's flag lands, but the USA does. The truth is, you don't.

Republicans value all things that are wrong. One of the Republican candidates is quoted as saying a nuclear attack on Iran is a possibility, the other has been accused several times of sex offenses and the other is a clueless Texan rancher with nothing but helium between his ears. Don't try and defend such a party.

Now, do me a favour and bore off. You are annoying.
Reply 166
Original post by Blackburn_Allen
I'm so bored of you already.

The "best military" in the world argument is a joke. You are going on what your own government tells you but the truth is completely different. I know about 5 people that have been/are in Afghanistan as we type on here. Many of them have had to give American soldiers extra training themselves, or prompt them on how to use certain pieces of equipment. The fact your military doesn't even train it's own soldiers on how to use the Javelin missile correctly bemuses me but I have to admit it's quite funny. We had a good old laugh watching helmet-cam footage of an American attempting to put on his body armour. I don't know if anyone has seen the infamous Balotelli bib scenario but if you have imagine that, only with a 60 pound vest.


You are using anecdotal evidence to accuse our military of being poorly trained? lol. I find it hard to believe that our military is poorly trained considering the funding it gets.

I have grown up on one of the poorest estates in Britain. I was born in Blackburn, a town notorious for it's working class populace and lack of state funding and grew up in a forgotten estate in Birmingham. These are considered some of the worst places to live in England, yet I've been to America to visit family before and seen first hand the state of the projects over there. Let me tell you now, from someone who has seen both sides of the spectrum, there is no comparison between the "poorer" estates in England and the poorer estates in America. Don't lie to me and to yourself, moron.

"You know that isn't true, but even if it was, is it really so bad when we bring freedom to many of these countries?"

What?! Name me some countries you have brought a stable, free and democratic way of life too? I can't name one. You went into Vietnam blindly and brought nothing but death to both sides and destroyed most of Vietnam's beautiful landscape with Agent Orange (or whatever) in the process. Iraq is still feeling the effects of an unjust war in which we blindly supported on false pretenses. Afghanistan is about as free from terrorism and religious persecution as Iran.
Somalia? Well, that speaks for itself really. Need I go on?


Iraq is a much safer and better place because of us actually. South Korea, Israel, the whole of europe who we liberated during WWII. There are numerous examples of US involvement being hugely successful.

The mission in Libya has been, on the large part, a success. But, oh, look who spearheaded that mission? Britain and France.


A country that is introducing sharia law and is becoming muslim? It probably won't even get a real democracy; Libya is not a raging success.

You haven't brought freedom anywhere. You've brought war, death and carnage in the name of democracy. Countries that need the "might" of the USA (who consider themselves as the police of the world) don't get it, probably due to it's lack of oil. Where is your presence in Zimbabwe? In fact, where is your presence in the most of Africa?


It's because we don't have unlimited resources to get involved in every nation on the planet. I can assure you this isn't about oil, In fact, we got less oil from Iraq after the invasion.

Republicans value all things that are wrong. One of the Republican candidates is quoted as saying a nuclear attack on Iran is a possibility, the other has been accused several times of sex offenses and the other is a clueless Texan rancher with nothing but helium between his ears. Don't try and defend such a party.


I vote republican because they are a good party with good values. You can't generalize about all Republicans based on a few stupid candidates. For every crazy one there are plenty of good candidates.
Reply 167
Original post by Komnenos
It is often said that the Soviets won WWII for the allies, and that American's are stupid for believing they played a pivotal role on the European front.

This may be a fair criticism, from a military point of view. In a political sense, though, the US did play the role of savior to Western Europe.

It was the US that ensured Western Europe would develop into prosperous, liberal, democracies by preventing Soviet influence from spreading West.

You can all whinge on about the US being evil imperialists, but the fact of the matter is that they ensured the survival of your way of life. As much as you may hate it.

Edit:
Whoops, I forgot that all the left-wing, "internationalist", self-hating, youth on here hate their own country and hate the fact that it doesn't resemble Venezuela. My bad.

Hah. The negs really blew up on this one.


TSR is home of self-loathing left-wing intelligentsia and immigrants so of course a lot of people will be anti US on here.
Original post by DYKWIA
By football I take it you mean soccer... We don't play much professional soccer as it is treated as a kid's game or a backup for when you have nothing else to play. Soccer is seriously overrated.


By football I mean football. The game is called Association Football. Not soccer. Association Football. It's so called because it's played with...wait for it...the FEET!
I don't care whether you Yanks play the game or not (You do, you just suck at it, so pretend you don't care about it). The point is that you made a false statement regarding football and I proved you wrong, as I did with a dozen other stupid statements you made.

Original post by DYKWIA

Then how come when we entered the war you suddenly started winning? It must be a coincidence - twice.


My brother was born...then six months later the Soviet Union dissolved. Coincidence? No, by your logic, my brother entering this world single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union. He is, by your logic, the bane of communsim who won the Cold War. :rolleyes:

What won the Great War was the defeat of Germany. What defeated Germany was a combination of the pressure of the Royal Navy blockade, the collapse of it's allies, and it's own defeat on the battlefield.
The Royal Navy is British. The British, Empire, French and other distinctly non-American allies defeated Germany's allies.
Germany's defeat on the battlefield came during the Hundred Days Offensive, the majority of defeats which were inflicted by the British and French, not American.
Even American Expeditionary Force commander General Pershing said that British Field Marshal Haig (and by extention the BEF) was 'The man who won the war'.
So on one side we have the testimony of the leader of American forces during the Great War, a SIX star general no less, and then we have...well...you.

Original post by DYKWIA

My point about how many of our troops died shows how much involvement we had in the war. With so many dead, you can't tell me we didn't play a pivotal role.


You want to play the numbers game? Really?
British Empire- 1.1 million dead
France- 1.4 million dead
Russia- 1.8 million dead
Italy -0.6 million dead

So yeah, I can say that the United States didn't play a pivotal role.
The American Expeditionary Force came over to Europe poorly trained and poorly equipped using already discarded tactics. They suffered a bloody nose for it. They didn't win any decisive battles. So why do you think that qualifies your claim?
Only a Yank would argue something based on such ridiculously stupid logic.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by DYKWIA
We certainly don't get enough recognition for our role in the war. Not only did we send vast numbers of troops to liberate europe we also funded the british war effort and essentially held her empire together for her.


What you mean to say is that you loaned Britain and other countries money to buy weapons and ammunition and took a huge interest on the repayments, effectively giving the US the financial boost it needed to push it above the bankrupt European powers who had actually already been fighting for two and a half years, suffering the economic and human casualties of total war, rather than having the privilege of being able to send troops to a distant battlefield. And please don't bring up Pearl Harbour, the whole scenario has even been the basis for psychological analysis on defective group decision-making, since every one in the know at that base knew the Japs were going to attack and did nothing to stop it.

America used WWII as an opportunity to elevate itself to a new level of superiority over Europe. One could say that the US's involvement in WWII enabled it to become the superpower it has been over the past few decades. As for the actual war itself, the Soviets did a damnsight more than the Americans did (and didn't 'charge Europe for it either) in terms of putting Hitler between a rock and a hard place, and the British input I would put slightly above that of the Russians; their intelligence services, the way their people suffered and pulled together, the way they managed to exceed Germany's output on planes despite the Nazis having a two year head-start, the technological advancements they provided to the Allies - and the list goes on.

It has to be said that anyone with a basic knowledge of modern history would agree that their overall contribution dwarfs that of the US considerably, and as I said, the US is also trailing considerably behind the Russians when it comes to who did what in WWII. Bombing Japan cos' you were pissed off about being bombed yourself doesn't constitute anything other than self-interest, and at that point it could be argued the result of said bombing had little impact on how the war would eventually pan out; Hitler was already beaten, it was just a matter of how long it took him to realize it - or suffer the fruition of his great error in judgement (of believing he could successfully fight a war on two fronts). Indeed, Hitler's God-complex was more important to the Allies victory than America's involvement. The blind-patriotism from certain members of the US just never ceases to amaze me.
Reply 170
Original post by pol pot noodles
By football I mean football. The game is called Association Football. It's called football because it's played with...wait for it...the FEET!
I don't care whether you Yanks play the game or not (You do, you just suck at it, so pretend you don't care about it). The point is that you made a false statement regarding football and I proved you wrong, as I did with a dozen other stupid statements you made.


Call it whatever. We don't play it much, and besides, didn't we draw with the britain in the south africa world cup?

My brother was born...then six months later the Soviet Union dissolved. Coincidence? No, by your logic, my brother entering this world single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union.
What won the Great War was the defeat of Germany. What defeated Germany was a combination of the pressure of the Royal Navy blockade, the collapse of it's allies, and it's own defeat on the battlefield.
The Royal Navy is British. The British, Empire, French and other distinctly non-American allies defeated Germany's allies.
Germany's defeat on the battlefield came during the Hundred Days Offensive, the majority of defeats which were inflicted by the British and French, not American.

You want to play the numbers game? Really?
British Empire- 1.1 million dead
France- 1.4 million dead
Russia- 1.8 million dead
Italy -0.6 million dead

So yeah, I can say that the United States didn't play a pivotal role.
The American Expeditionary Force came over to Europe poorly trained and poorly equipped using already discarded tactics. They suffered a bloody nose for it. They didn't win any decisive battles. So why do you think that qualifies your claim?
Only a Yank would argue something based on such ridiculously stupid logic.


Okay, so we didn't play as big a role in WWI as I thought, but the fact remains that it was a war that didn't directly affect us and yet we still got involved and helped you.

Original post by Solid_Snake7
What you mean to say is that you loaned Britain and other countries money to buy weapons and ammunition and took a huge interest on the repayments, effectively giving the US the financial boost it needed to push it above the bankrupt European powers who had actually already been fighting for two and a half years, suffering the economic and human casualties of total war, rather than having the privilege of being able to send troops to a distant battlefield. And please don't bring up Pearl Harbour, the whole scenario has even been the basis for psychological analysis on defective group decision-making, since every one in the know at that base knew the Japs were going to attack and did nothing to stop it.


So what you are saying is that simply because we benefited somewhat from the war (this is debatable considering the number of people we lost) we can't possibly have saved your empire for you, despite the fact empires go against everything the US stands for.

Don't trivialize Pearl Harbor or lay the blame on the government. Perhaps it was their fault that the navy weren't better prepared but the fact remains that the Japanese were brutal and killed thousands of American troops despite us being neutral. It was a disgusting, unprovoked attack.

America used WWII as an opportunity to elevate itself to a new level of superiority over Europe. One could say that the US's involvement in WWII enabled it to become the superpower it has been over the past few decades. As for the actual war itself, the Soviets did a damnsight more than the Americans did (and didn't 'charge Europe for it either) in terms of putting Hitler between a rock and a hard place, and the British input I would put slightly above that of the Russians; their intelligence services, the way their people suffered and pulled together, the way they managed to exceed Germany's output on planes despite the Nazis having a two year head-start, the technological advancements they provided to the Allies - and the list goes on.


The US' rise would have happened whether or not it got involved in the war. It's economy, resources and innovation were too strong for anything else to happen.

It has to be said that anyone with a basic knowledge of modern history would agree that their overall contribution dwarfs that of the US considerably, and as I said, the US is also trailing considerably behind the Russians when it comes to who did what in WWII. Bombing Japan cos' you were pissed off about being bombed yourself doesn't constitute anything other than self-interest, and at that point it could be argued the result of said bombing had little impact on how the war would eventually pan out; Hitler was already beaten, it was just a matter of how long it took him to realize it - or suffer the fruition of his great error in judgement (of believing he could successfully fight a war on two fronts). Indeed, Hitler's God-complex was more important to the Allies victory than America's involvement. The blind-patriotism from certain members of the US just never ceases to amaze me.


As has been said multiple times, bombing Japan prevented greater loss of life on both the American and japanese sides.

A second front existed because of the US. If it hadn't been for the US Hitler could have focused his forces on Russia and might have won. What would have happened to britain then?! In fact, what would have happened if the US had not stepped in after the war to stop russia taking over the whole of europe?
Original post by DYKWIA
Call it whatever. We don't play it much, and besides, didn't we draw with the britain in the south africa world cup?


You did, congratulations. Brilliant strawman.

Original post by DYKWIA

Okay, so we didn't play as big a role in WWI as I thought, but the fact remains that it was a war that didn't directly affect us and yet we still got involved and helped you.


See, you admit it was a TEAM EFFORT? Was that so hard?
My problem is when you go around making claims about saving so and so's asses in this war and that with the only logic being that you know how to read a calender. If you don't know about a subject why did you make such a brash and arrogant declaration about it?



Original post by DYKWIA

A second front existed because of the US and the British Commonwealth. If it hadn't been for the US and the British Commonwealth Hitler could have focused his forces on Russia and might have won. What would have happened to britain then?! In fact, what would have happened if the US had not stepped in after the war to stop russia taking over the whole of europe?


Fixed it for you.
Reply 172
Original post by pol pot noodles
You did, congratulations. Brilliant strawman.


Yes, so actually I'd say we are good at soccer when we wanna be.

See, you admit it was a TEAM EFFORT? Was that so hard?
My problem is when you go around making claims about saving so and so's asses in this war and that with the only logic being that you know how to read a calender. If you don't know about a subject why did you make such a brash and arrogant declaration about it?


It's just that people use this 'team' thing to downplay American involvement.

Fixed it for you.


Some assistance from britain, yes.
Original post by kopite493
**** that it was Britain that cracked the enigma code subsequently winning the war


Except in the film....where the US solve it and then there is a couple of lines at the end of the credits saying "actually guys....this is a load of *******s"
Original post by DYKWIA
Yes, because europe is doing so well financially. We are in so much debt partially because the EU is unable to control its spending. That's socialism in action for ya!


Partially being the operative word. The vast majority of your indebtedness is down to living far beyond your means.
And at least Europe is trying to get its spending under control. America (or at least the American government), for all I can gather, seems content to bury its head in the sand and watch as the debt clock hits $15 trillion. At some point, no matter how much Obama hates it, America will have to take the axe to its budget big time, just like everyone in Europe is doing right now.
Original post by DYKWIA
So what you are saying is that simply because we benefited somewhat from the war (this is debatable considering the number of people we lost) we can't possibly have saved your empire for you, despite the fact empires go against everything the US stands for. The US' rise would have happened whether or not it got involved in the war. It's economy, resources and innovation were too strong for anything else to happen.

Benefited 'somewhat'? You are seriously underplaying this. I don't think you grasp the fact that your country ensured it would be impossible for the economies of the European powers to recover after the Second World War, and simultaneously expedited the growth of your own economy. Actually, your economy would not have thrived nearly so much without the positive impact of WWII, and the negative impact it had on Europe. Ever heard of the Great Depression? How d'you think you recovered so fast? One minute your economy is in tatters, the next you're on the up? Maybe it was all that money you got from the Allies after World War II. Or maybe it was just another happy coincidence :rolleyes: You did not 'save' the Empire, it collapsed rather promptly after WWII, and let's not get into the very vague debate over your country 'standing' for something. It's a very simple concept of history you have, my friend, indeed, a very basic view of humanity. America was born in a world where Empires were no longer necessary or acceptable, and modern day international relations meant that the US was able to enjoy the isolationist economic privileges that would previously have required conquest. Gone were those days, and so arose a time when there was 'free' trade and diplomacy reigned - and that is where America excelled as it became the superpower it is today. So, to summarise, what you perceive as American morality (being 'against' Empires) is really just a consequence of the times - and nothing to do with standing for anything. America was willing to stand for whatever made it prosperous during that particular period of time, just as England was during the days of the Empire. You are so naive it honestly defies belief.

Original post by DYKWIA
Don't trivialize Pearl Harbor or lay the blame on the government. Perhaps it was their fault that the navy weren't better prepared but the fact remains that the Japanese were brutal and killed thousands of American troops despite us being neutral. It was a disgusting, unprovoked attack. As has been said multiple times, bombing Japan prevented greater loss of life on both the American and japanese sides.

I'm not trivializing Pearl Harbour, I'm explaining it, putting it into it's proper historical and social context, since you seem to have entirely missed the point. You know, it's this kind of ignorance and arrogance that enabled the Japanese to get away with Pearl Harbour. Let me enlighten you. Every single top naval administrator at Pearl Harbour knew that an attack was imminent, and decided to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that they were untouchable instead of seeking preventative measures or some sort of pre-emptive strike. It's a tragedy that so many people lost their lives there, and yes, it was a disgusting, unprovoked attack, on that we totally agree. The greater tragedy, however, is that, despite every intelligence agency in your country (the original intelligence was from British secret services btw - you're welcome) warning those in charge at Pearl Harbour that an attack was imminent, they took no action to defend themselves, or to save the lives of those on the base. Pride cometh before a fall? It's nothing to be ashamed of, you weren't the only victims of excessive pride in that war, but these petty attempts to glorify America in light of your contributions to WWII really is a fool's game, because there's a reason you didn't come out of that war looking too great - there's a reason why many people think the Soviets saved Europe, and it's not because they hate the US, it's because they have at least some grasp of the historical facts of the matter. And whilst we're on the subject of tragedy, worse even than Pearl Harbour were the retaliatory attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which were known to be non-military targets. It was a far more cowardly, Machiavellian strike than that offered by the Japanese, and anyone who tries to deny it really does need to have their head sorted out. More disgusting still is the propagandizing of these events by 'patriots' such as yourself, and the stigmatization of the Japanese - the sweeping under the carpet of history, in order to exalt the great 'US of A'. You are no better than the next country, whose foreign policy golden rule will always be to protect domestic interests above all others - that's humanity for you, that's self-preservation. It's an ugly truth, and one you should really come to terms with, because the lack of it in you is truly skewing your sense of reality at the moment.
Original post by DYKWIA
Yes, so actually I'd say we are good at soccer when we wanna be.


Whoah! Let's not get carried away there fella!
The fact the United States drew with England was a lot more down to the fact that the England team were playing ****, and I mean complete and utter ****, like the really runny diarrhea type **** you do after downing seven pints and then eating a bad kebab from the dodgy place down the road where the guy hasn't heard of the concept of washing his hands, more than any American excellence.
I'll bet my left testicle that by the end of the century the Jules Rimet trophy will still be devoid of the word 'United States' on the winner's plaque.

Original post by DYKWIA

It's just that people use this 'team' thing to downplay American involvement.


No, you guys use the team thing to downplay every one else's involvement. Notice how the OP is about how Europe should thank the US? You guys start it. It's as if the thought of sharing credit and not being known as the ultimate bad-ass spartan war winners is unbearable.

Original post by DYKWIA

Over half of all personnel involved in the D-Day invasions were British Commonwealth. Infact they invaded three beaches while we invaded two, and five of the six commanders of the invasion were British, so with a lot of assistance from britain, yes.


Fixed it for you again.
Original post by Blackburn_Allen

As for the "leave the lame one" comment, I had to laugh. I am anti-EU but let's not class the USA as the "best country in the world" when it is in trillions of dollars worth of debt, it's military is severely under trained and thus extremely prone to mistakes, it's foreign policies basically equate to "if they don't agree, invade", it has a more than frightening gap between rich and poor (the poorer living in ghettos that would be classed as inhumane in Britain) and most of it's populace are religious psychopaths that agree with the republican way of life- anti abortion, anti homosexuality and basically anti anything that represents freedom. If that's what you class as "great" then you are welcome to it, my friend.


Okay, I agree with you on the military's policy of "you're either with us or against us", but I'm wondering where your proof is that it's severely under trained? I'm not challenging what you say to be a troll, I'm just wondering if this actually is the case, then why the hell am I, as an American, paying for such a huge military budget if the military can't even train its own people. Just looking at how much we spend, I'm a little critical of that statement.

Also, stop with the obnoxious stereotyping. I thought your post had validity up until that point. How can we be anti-abortion when we approved of abortion years ago? If "most of its populace", as you say, is anti-abortion, we would be able to pass an amendment outlawing abortion. Granted, it's really hard to do that, but if people really were that way abortion wouldn't be legal. And, most people ARE NOT religious psychopaths. Of course there are some, but it really just depends on what part of the country you're talking about. People seem to think all Americans are the same, but with a country of more than 300 million, there are some very obvious differences in culture all across America. It shows a lot of ignorance when you clump all Americans together. America is 3,794,101 square miles, while the whole of Europe is 3,930,000 square miles, therefore you can deduct that there is almost as much variety in American culture as there is in the cultures of different European countries. Each state has its own culture, and different areas of each state have their own culture as well. We are a truly multicultural society. I will agree that too many people are anti-homosexual, but we're working on that. :wink: Though, same-sex marriage isn't legal in the UK, so you guys can't bash us too much about it.

Original post by pol pot noodles
By football I mean football. The game is called Association Football. Not soccer. Association Football. It's so called because it's played with...wait for it...the FEET! I don't care whether you Yanks play the game or not (You do, you just suck at it, so pretend you don't care about it). The point is that you made a false statement regarding football and I proved you wrong, as I did with a dozen other stupid statements you made.

You want to play the numbers game? Really?
British Empire- 1.1 million dead
France- 1.4 million dead
Russia- 1.8 million dead
Italy -0.6 million dead

So yeah, I can say that the United States didn't play a pivotal role.
The American Expeditionary Force came over to Europe poorly trained and poorly equipped using already discarded tactics. They suffered a bloody nose for it. They didn't win any decisive battles. So why do you think that qualifies your claim?
Only a Yank would argue something based on such ridiculously stupid logic.


Really dude (i'm assuming you're male)? You're really going to pick a fight over the word "football"? I don't know which one of you two started it, but come on! It's just a word! It's like trunk vs. boot. So long as everyone knows what the other person is talking about, it doesn't matter.

I totally agree with you on the numbers dead point. When DYKWIA claimed that the Americans won the war because of how many people died, I almost started laughing. In WWI and WWII, Russia was the clear "winner" of the wars if you count it just from the number of people who died. Especially WWII.

Of course the American troops came over poorly trained and equipped...they hadn't been preparing for war like those in Europe had before WWI. Not sure why you put that part in there...
Original post by DYKWIA
Don't trivialize Pearl Harbor or lay the blame on the government. Perhaps it was their fault that the navy weren't better prepared but the fact remains that the Japanese were brutal and killed thousands of American troops despite us being neutral. It was a disgusting, unprovoked attack.

As has been said multiple times, bombing Japan prevented greater loss of life on both the American and japanese sides.


Actually, that's not true. My history teacher a few years ago obtained previously-classified documents that were declassified during the Freedom of Information Act that directly show that FDR provoked Japan into attacking the United States so that the people would feel a justification for going to war. The document was valid and in plain letters, and there's proof that the plans laid out in the document actually were set in motion. I'm not saying that the Japanese were in the right by attacking Pearl Harbor, but the act was not unprovoked.

You do realize that's not the main reason the dropped the bombs, right? It was all 100% political. But, considering you are you, I'm not going to explain myself because it will all fall in deaf, ignorant ears.
Original post by green chica

Really dude (i'm assuming you're male)? You're really going to pick a fight over the word "football"? I don't know which one of you two started it, but come on! It's just a word! It's like trunk vs. boot. So long as everyone knows what the other person is talking about, it doesn't matter.


Bah! it's long standing banter dating back to his posts on the Should England join the US and leave the EU? thread

Original post by green chica

Of course the American troops came over poorly trained and equipped...they hadn't been preparing for war like those in Europe had before WWI. Not sure why you put that part in there...


I was putting forward the question of how exactly he thought a poorly trained and equipped army saved Britain and France.


Original post by green chica
Actually, that's not true. My history teacher a few years ago obtained previously-classified documents that were declassified during the Freedom of Information Act that directly show that FDR provoked Japan into attacking the United States so that the people would feel a justification for going to war. The document was valid and in plain letters, and there's proof that the plans laid out in the document actually were set in motion. I'm not saying that the Japanese were in the right by attacking Pearl Harbor, but the act was not unprovoked.


Interesting...
Do you have a link to these documents?
(edited 12 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest