StarGateWars Forums

Kit-Fox wrote:without acting like a schoolyard bully

America does not act like a schoolyard bully. It just seems that the other countries in this world will not spend the time, money and energy to protect themselves. So every time the UN or NATO is called upon, it is the U.S.A. that sends the most money, time and energy protecting who ever asks for our help.

Btw do you know of the only thing the U.S.A. ever asks for in return? A little land to bury our brave soldiers and citizens that died for your freedom.

Also, Hitler did not defeat himself. Hitler was defeated by 3 main things: Russian soldiers, America bombing and America making supplies for the rest of the world.

Nuclear energy was a joint operation, that is a new one on me. Project Manhattan must have been lies in my history book?

Killer wrote:

Kit-Fox wrote:without acting like a schoolyard bully

America does not act like a schoolyard bully. It just seems that the other countries in this world will not spend the time, money and energy to protect themselves. So every time the UN or NATO is called upon, it is the U.S.A. that sends the most money, time and energy protecting who ever asks for our help.

Btw do you know of the only thing the U.S.A. ever asks for in return? A little land to bury our brave soldiers and citizens that died for your freedom.


Also, Hitler did not defeat himself. Hitler was defeated by 3 main things: Russian soldiers, America bombing and America making supplies for the rest of the world.

Nuclear energy was a joint operation, that is a new one on me. Project Manhattan must have been lies in my history book?

consider each following paragraph a response in the same order as yours

I'm not even gonna get into this apart from saying you don know the UK/France and others have got involved so many times in peacekeeping duties due to americas policy of what seems to be 'get in & out as fast as possible and dont clean up the mess we make' Although that doesnt seem to have happened in iraq and you know its good it hasnt as its forced the US to realise what happens when it acts unilaterally and on its own just like a primary school bully would. with regards to money spent i'm not gonna get into as any comparison wouldnt be accurate and besides such institiutions wouldnt exist unless america wanted them as the rest of the world isnt really that bothered by such grand global schemes really, we (europe) tried such things ages ago and found that they dont work and are utterly pointless, but we are happy to try on the off chance these might the ones that work but it seems so far that they arent

Uh-huh, you also dont generally let your soldiers be subject to the same laws as the rest of the country (in cases where the soldier in question commits what would be crime in that country outside of the base) in the countries you have military bases in like japan, UK & germany to mention a few (although this seems to be changing as of late) You also use your armed forces to aggresively protect your embassies even in such countries as the UK, France etc countries which would be considered friendly by most observers. In fact when Bush came over to the UK he brought US marines to protect him, now i'm sorry but thats just an insult to the UK security services who were more than adequate to the task, we didnt need your military forces running around the countryside with guns frightening and bullying the protesters that gathered there peacefully (especially when the UK police were on the scene and making sure nothing would happen) oh and lets not forget echelon that the US insisted was installed across the world and that the US alone retains control of without allowing equal access to other allies. Do I even mention GPS access even when other allies pay for access to the data?


Hitler would have been defeated with or without americas involvement due to russia and his stupid mistake in attacking them during their winter. america (and without trying to diminish the contribution made) just hastened it, yes the UK may have fell before this happened but happen it would have. Japan on the other and is a totally diffferent question but then you only mentioned hitler.


Nuclear weapons were made possible due to a intensive collaboration between german / UK / US and several other countries scientists. yes they worked together in the US as that was the safest place at the time to conduct such a project out of reach of hitler but that doesnt mean that the US made nuclear bombs or could have on their own, oh and btw it was the brits who extracted the european scientists so they could help us make it but that seems to be totally forgotten about

Anywho as this is getting off the topic of the election either PM me or shall we make a new thread to carry this on?

Let the election talks continue

American needs europe and the rest of the world, Just the same as europe needs america and the rest of the world, Hell just the same as russia needs the rest of the world.

Swings and roundabouts, USA are Very important to the balance of the globe, they are the Main western Coutry and without a doubt, the most powerful...And the most in debt... (had to get that in there...ten trillion and riseing ) But without the other western nations...Youve all seen red dawn...So lets not change the arguement into who needs who, Without europe, america is screwed, Without America, Europe is screwed, Without europeand USA, Russia is screwed but happy.

Now get back to dissussions The election!

Buck for President!

good points buck. usa and europe work out about equal on paper. take one away and the west would be crippled.

congrats to Killer for being wrong more more times than i thought possible. pls spend a few weeks on wikipedia learning about the world mate.

Kit-Fox wrote:Hitler would have been defeated with or without americas involvement due to russia and his stupid mistake in attacking them during their winter. america (and without trying to diminish the contribution made) just hastened it, yes the UK may have fell before this happened but happen it would have. Japan on the other and is a totally diffferent question but then you only mentioned hitler.

hitler would have lost eventually. war would have been longer without us aid. btw the uk wouldnt have fallen. after the war top commanders from both sides conducted a war games on paper only. the germans managed to land on british territory but their advance would have been halted at defensive lines. the british navy would then have arrived and put an end to the invasion. hitlers plans to conquer britian were never realistic. maybe if he didnt attack russia, but he did. epic fail for hitler


to me mccain looks the better choice at times as does obama. what i think it comes down to is mccains experience. i just wouldnt trust obama. he seems too concerned by celebrity. he's come up with a few ideas which are simply stupid and unrealistic. i keep imagining him making a terrible mistake and saying oops as the world annihilates itself in a nuclear war. he aint got what it takes to be cool and make the choices under pressure. give him another 10-15 years to get experience and he would make a good president probably.

yeh so definitely mccain for now. although its hard to be in favor of a gun-loving, abortion hating rich dude. its a lesser of two evils thing

Not to mention McCain lost his "moderateness" (at least in France they kept saying he was moderate republican and was a "rebel" to his party, at beginning of campaign) thru the campaign because of voters...which was verified by analysing his change of positions with time going on.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

When I think of British in WWII, I think of the following:

Defending Poland and France, showed British were full of talking but, not much action.

Battle of Dunkirk, how did that work out for the British?

Lend Lease Program, where America had to produce almost everything for the British and Russia.

British protecting the convoys from the German Wolf Packs, how did that work out? Oh, the Americans had to help do that too.

The powerhouse Russia that you speak of, how long did it take Stalin to defeat the little country of Finland? This was before America started sending them supplies also.

British defending Africa, that went on for years and British could not do anything there either, until America got involved.

It seems like before WWII was over, the British had to get help from America, Canada, Australia, India, Russia and etc. That seems remarkably like right now, British blow a lot of hot air but, they want everyone else to pay for it.

That is very logical, seeing how Britain has been an extensive Colonial Empire for almost half of its existence.

Britain has been and continues to be dependent on other nations, simply because Britain never needed to produce everything herself. That has been enabled after the loss of her Colonies by America (Lend Lease Program, as you referred to) and former Colonies helping out the old homeland.

So without a real independent economy, but with quite a bit of power and influence, Britain *has* to have help from others. That doesn't make it less powerful or less influential, since the situation hasn't been any different since the Fall of the Empire.


Or did I miss your point, Killer?

Or did I miss your point, Killer

No , But apparently he missed mine...

America Had to start lend lease, For the entire of europe, otherwise they would have been screwed...As i said earlier, the american economy needs the rest of the world, Just as the rest of the world needs the american economy, Just like we all need China, Who pwn us all.

China wins.

Back to disscussion about McCain and Obama anyone? Or shall i change the thread title...

Whoops. Apologies, I already tampered with it..

No one has convinced me to drop my favouring of McCain yet.
Quite the contrary.. given the insane amount of attention the American elections get in our puny country, and the "Oh, Obama is soo great, we have to love him and want him as our own president, let alone America's!" kind of gets on my nerves. So, I am opposed to Obama, and given McCains relatively more-conservativeness (more as Obama, that is), I am in favour of McCain.


I am somewhat conservative, as one might have noticed here and there.

Lois Lane wrote:
Britain has been and continues to be dependent on other nations, simply because Britain never needed to produce everything herself. That has been enabled after the loss of her Colonies by America (Lend Lease Program, as you referred to) and former Colonies helping out the old homeland.

Or did I miss your point, Killer?

No, you did a nice job pointing out that British for the past 100 years or so always needs help before they get their arses handed to them.

I for one am tired of seeing America waste its young soldiers and wealth defending the rest of the world. And everyone else either taking credit for it or **Filtered** about what we did wrong.

Any punk can win a fight by ganging up on someone with their friends. But, it takes a man to fight by himself against large odds with no outside help.

No, that takes a fool....Would you like the UK to hold your hand in every country you invade killer? Oh wait...we already do, ever since you lost in 'Nam youve asked us for help, not the other way around...

Ahem. Colin Powell, Probally one of the most influencial political Figures who hasnt been president in the USA, Backed Obama this morning, Against his own party. Thats gotta win more centre Con undeicided votes to the obama camp...

Killer wrote:

Lois Lane wrote:
Britain has been and continues to be dependent on other nations, simply because Britain never needed to produce everything herself. That has been enabled after the loss of her Colonies by America (Lend Lease Program, as you referred to) and former Colonies helping out the old homeland.

Or did I miss your point, Killer?

No, you did a nice job pointing out that British for the past 100 years or so always needs help before they get their arses handed to them.

I for one am tired of seeing America waste its young soldiers and wealth defending the rest of the world. And everyone else either taking credit for it or **Filtered** about what we did wrong.

Any punk can win a fight by ganging up on someone with their friends. But, it takes a man to fight by himself against large odds with no outside help.

Britain had already weathered the worst Nazi assaults (the Battle of Britain the early Blitz) by the time American forces were engaged in Europe. America was a great help, admittedly, but it's a little arrogant and a lot untrue to claim that Britain would have been doomed without your help. Not to mention insulting to the numerous British servicemen who gave their lives defending their country before the USA even deigned to involve itself in the war.

Not to mention all the Canadian forces throwing themselfs straight into hell alongside Britain...*coughs*

Anyways.
What day exactly is election day on?
The fraking thing seems to have been going on for two years now.

Mordack wrote:

Killer wrote:

Lois Lane wrote:
Britain has been and continues to be dependent on other nations, simply because Britain never needed to produce everything herself. That has been enabled after the loss of her Colonies by America (Lend Lease Program, as you referred to) and former Colonies helping out the old homeland.

Or did I miss your point, Killer?

No, you did a nice job pointing out that British for the past 100 years or so always needs help before they get their arses handed to them.

I for one am tired of seeing America waste its young soldiers and wealth defending the rest of the world. And everyone else either taking credit for it or **Filtered** about what we did wrong.

Any punk can win a fight by ganging up on someone with their friends. But, it takes a man to fight by himself against large odds with no outside help.

Britain had already weathered the worst Nazi assaults (the Battle of Britain the early Blitz) by the time American forces were engaged in Europe. America was a great help, admittedly, but it's a little arrogant and a lot untrue to claim that Britain would have been doomed without your help. Not to mention insulting to the numerous British servicemen who gave their lives defending their country before the USA even deigned to involve itself in the war.

That was part of my post that seems to have gotten lost in translation.. I was talking about the time after WWII, as suggested by my reference to 'the loss of her Colonies' and 'the fall of the empire'.
It was definitely not my intention to call the British cowards or anything. I love Britain and the British people (ouch.. English, Welsh, Scottish.. Falklandian. ).