Will the USA ask for help?

reply to post by Throbber



I can agree with you on that . . . But if it was not for the fresh fighting men (which the US produced an abundance of lol) and fresh women at home manufacturing, things would have gone much different

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Hurray for the name calling! I love when I win that way.


Stranglehold? lol

France was gone. London was being bombed. U-boats were cruising the English Channel. Yep . . . good stalemate there . . .

Our navy was very busy trying to stop merchant vessels from both sides of the water from being torpedoed and sank, while i believe a sizable portion of the U.S navy was busy sitting around in Pearl Harbour.



p.s; Perhaps if we didn't have a warchief who understood only how to talk to the people and a Commander who understood more about how to wage a war than simply hurling men into combat, the circumstances would not have ended up as they did.

Hey . . . Hawaii would have been a great idea, if our genius administration would have let our ships know that they were going to be attacked

reply to post by xxpigxx


If your genius administration kept your ships busy doing work protecting the conveys properly, we brits would most likely have been able to conduct a respectable war quite easily over the channel and north sea, but no.

I'll admit, we did need America for your Resources, but it seems the price we paid for those resources was a tad high.

Originally posted by Flyer
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

I always find it hilarious when the WWs are bought up. The US spent years trying to dodge its way out of fighting yet some ignorant people 60 years later think it was the worlds saviour back then.

The US was a part of a coalition that won the wars yet you yanks believe you did it all by yourself.

And there it is........Watch as the BS meter starts to wobble. People like you will forever damn the USA for getting involved in Wars and damn us if we don't get in Wars.People will always love to hate us when it is convenient for them.Maybe many of you who are not American should start looking into your own countries horrid history before you past judgment on us the everyday citizens.Yet there will be some who say their gripe is not with us but our government, but if you read their comments it sure reads like you are talking about the citizen and not the government.

England has always depended on the US to pull it's fat out of the fire. As it's been said, without our help you'd all be speaking German and saluting your Fuhrer.

Britain used to be a world power, but your days of glory are long over. England has been about as much help to America as Italy was to Germany during WWII. You're more of a liability than an asset.

reply to post by xxpigxx


Any fool can borrow a huge amount of money, adorn themselves with all the trappings of success and claim to be top dog. That's not a Reagan economic miracle, that's not proof that a pure capitalist system is better than the Western European alternative ... it's just proof that people are greedy bastards and want to buy todays consumer items (and tomorrows landfill) with money they havent even earned.

Spare us all the "USA is best routine" ... it's difficult, as a European, feeling somehow inferior as I look around my home at the items I've bought with my own labour and without having to borrow to do so ... my home's nearly paid off, the car is paid off (gas guzzler too, Volvo S80), plasma tv's, cellphones, fast broadband connection ... all bought & paid for ... so don't lay the blame at the door of the Europeans or the Chinese. No one held guns to your heads as you folks signed all those credit agreements. Didn't hear anyone complaining when you collected the keys for that new house or car ... didn't blame anyone else then, did y'all ? Course not, for at the time that was all the result of enterprise, freedom, liberty and good old American hard work ... or was it ? And all wrapped up in Old Glory too.

The only people to blame for this economic shambles are the greedy brokers who'd sell their Grandma to make a few bucks, administrations which relaxed borrowing rules to jumpstart growth and the feckless incompetent US consumer for whom whole life success may be measured solely in the size of their homes, the newness of their car(s), the number of vacations each year ... so how about blaming yourselves for a change ??

Try blaming yourselves for the price of gasoline ... invading Iraq when just about every other government counselled you against ... try blaming yourselves as you accept your tax cut checks and go spend it in Walmart or Target on Chinese crap ... try blaming yourselves for building rockets to the moon, nuclear bombs in the tens of thousands, carrier battle groups and all the rest of the Imperial flummery rather than investing that money elsewhere and as the Europeans did ... with consumers who care more about American Idol & their iPods and myspace and facebook than for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in the last few years ... and the hundreds of GI's killed in vain.

The New American Century hasn't even lasted 10 years ... and you've passed from superpower to irrelevance without any intervening period whatever.

It's not our fault. It's yours. Blame yourselves.

reply to post by CaptGizmo


I suppose you have a point Gizmo, i mean; It's not as if the British once conquered quite a mighty portion of the world after the American Revolution.

You guys just pissed us off so bad we had to go and seize more territory than you guys held.



LLoyd: Believe me when i say this, the U.S did not save England.

All you did was reduce our casualties.

If the U.S had refused to help us, then what you would have seen was possibly the most bloody armed conflict seen since the times of the Mongols.

edit; One that i believe we would have won, although of course our population will have been drastically reduced.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Throbber]

reply to post by Niall197



Umm . . . what are you talking about. That had nothing to do with the topic at hand, just as this post does not have anything top do with it

Originally posted by Throbber
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

If your genius administration kept your ships busy doing work protecting the conveys properly, we brits would most likely have been able to conduct a respectable war quite easily over the channel and north sea, but no.

I'll admit, we did need America for your Resources, but it seems the price we paid for those resources was a tad high.

Well perhaps if your genius administration would have stood up to him instead of appeasing him for a few years . .

reply to post by xxpigxx


Quite true, and it's almost reminiscient of how you guys are treating N.Korea and China atm.

edit; *cough* I hesitate to draw similarities between the riots in Tibet and the events surrounding Hitler's seat in power.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Throbber]

Anyway, back on topic;

It would be humourous (from my perspective) if people started creating AID funds for America, even if they aren't really in that bad of a position.

I would think the Japanese or Australians would only be too happy to commit to that idea.

I guess it does not really matter who is top dog in the world because they will be hated as well.People always love to hate who has what they don't.I am sure we will be jumping on that band wagon as well against China soon.

So listen up all you American super power haters........Start preparing your disparaging remarks and Chinese flags to burn and spit on....because there is a new big dog and if I had to make a guess.I would say many of you are not going to like the new Chinese world very much. You want to see a real nasty super power then sit back and watch the death toll and lack of compassion start.

reply to post by CaptGizmo


Nah, it's okay - at least with the chinese we have an enemy* who acts like an enemy.




*Politically, at least.

Obviously America ain't gonna go picking fights with any civilised nations, and of course - with China's involvement in the Tibetan riots they've shown their true colours.

China still has the same political nature it did back in tienemann square, and it would be foolish to assume otherwise.

At least with the Americans they hesitate to kill their own people without a good reason.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Throbber]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Throbber]

Originally posted by Throbber
reply to post by CaptGizmo

 

Nah, it's okay - at least with the chinese we have an enemy who acts like an enemy.

And that is where you are wrong SIR...WE are not your enemy as you might WANT to think.You obviously don't agree with what I said or I struck a cord with you.Tell me I am wrong in saying people will always love to hate the top dog.People hated the English at the time when they were the top dog as well as France.The last time I had checked they also where not England anymore but Great Britain ...correct?

I will say this though...the kind of civilized discussions we are having here are the kind that the powers that be in the world should be having instead of playing these childish games with peoples lives.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by CaptGizmo]

reply to post by CaptGizmo


*cough* Game Theory *cough*.

Yes, i refer to the psychological model involved in games of power, and yes, i compare it to the way that the American Establishment treats EVERY other foreign power in the world.

Perhaps you should consider your own pre-judgement towards others in the world before you judge theirs.

I'll put it in words that i believe in;

America does not Co-operate, America takes Advantage.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Throbber]

You could take that as a reason why America would not ask for help, if you liked.

Asking for help places others in a position of advantage, i'm sure most people are aware.

Originally posted by Throbber

LLoyd: Believe me when i say this, the U.S did not save England.

All you did was reduce our casualties.

If the U.S had refused to help us, then what you would have seen was possibly the most bloody armed conflict seen since the times of the Mongols.

edit; One that i believe we would have won, although of course our population will have been drastically reduced.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Throbber]

Your country would also have been bankrupt and unarmed if Roosevelt hadn't bailed you out with a big 4 billion dollar loan. Checkout the link then tell me we didn't pull your fat out of the fire.

How soon they forget..

reply to post by CaptGizmo


Im talking about the idiots that come up with the "we saved your ass" routine when they know they have nothing else to say and the argument is lost.

reply to post by LLoyd45


Yes, it's very nice that America saved us the hassle of sending unarmed men into combat.

I'm under the impression, however - that the British Armed Forces would have fought using sticks and stones if they had to, and of course; once we'd gotten onto the mainland we would've been able to start plundering the German Arsenals.

A bit of advice for the possible revolutionary;

Never underestimate a man who is willing to fight and die for his country.


If America had chosen not to help out, i truly believe that the war-machine that Britain would have fielded because of that negative would have been truly nerve-shattering in magnitude.

Commando training for every drafted recruit!

An Army of One-man Armies!

You may think it unlikely; but what was that? 300 men held off massive odds?

True, modern warfare is a tad different from using spears and swords, but then modern warfare is never that stagnant or solid either.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Throbber]