Page 10 of 11 [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

ruennsheng
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,523
Location: Singapore

08 Mar 2009, 1:12 am

I have to agree on this case. Sigh.



IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

08 Mar 2009, 6:44 am

ruveyn wrote:
ruennsheng wrote:
However the Soviets are pushed into the outskirts of Moscow... Without USA, even USSR would be defeated.


Very likely. But without the Soviet Union bleeding profusely the Americans and the Brits might not have taken Germany down in time before the Germans got lots of jet planes in the air (they did beat both the Americans and the Brits to an operational jet fighter). So the Russkies did their share. Besides, better the Commies should bleed, yes?

ruveyn


The US and allied forces at anytime shortly after the invasion of Normandy could have concentrated forces and like a knife cut a straight narrow line through Germany to Berlin and knocked out Berlin. It choose not to for two reasons. First, it would have taken longer to eventually defeat all the Germany forces spread out all over Germany. It was better to have them all keep retreating further and further back as Berlin called them back to defend Berlin.

And second, Britian and the US knew that they might be a war with Russia after the fall of Berlin, and felt it was best to weaken Russian forces. The best way to do this was by to delay the capture of Berlin.

Germany stopped production and research of new weapons in 1941 on order of Hitler because he believed the war would be over by 1943. So he was way behind in developing needed technology. By 1943 Hitler was all but defeated. Remember, it only took four years for the US to enter the war and help defeat Axis Powers.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Mar 2009, 10:14 am

IdahoAspie wrote:

Germany stopped production and research of new weapons in 1941 on order of Hitler because he believed the war would be over by 1943. So he was way behind in developing needed technology. By 1943 Hitler was all but defeated. Remember, it only took four years for the US to enter the war and help defeat Axis Powers.


You are overlooking the fact that the Rooskies paid a major portion of the Butcher's Bill. The more Rooskies who bled the fewer Americans and Brits bled.

ruveyn



IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

08 Mar 2009, 10:31 am

ruveyn wrote:
IdahoAspie wrote:

Germany stopped production and research of new weapons in 1941 on order of Hitler because he believed the war would be over by 1943. So he was way behind in developing needed technology. By 1943 Hitler was all but defeated. Remember, it only took four years for the US to enter the war and help defeat Axis Powers.


You are overlooking the fact that the Rooskies paid a major portion of the Butcher's Bill. The more Rooskies who bled the fewer Americans and Brits bled.

ruveyn


I'm not overlooking it. It was intentional on the UK, France, and US's parts. They wanted the Russians to bleed and die, to weaken. We knew that Stalin would was just as evil and Hitler and needed to held in check.

I have no sympathy for the Russian Army, they were allies with Hitler for a while and slaughtered innocent people in Poland, and assisted Hitler so that he could attack France and numerous other innocent nations.

If it weren't for the Russians, Hitler would not have gotten as far as he did in the first place.



Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

08 Mar 2009, 2:20 pm

IdahoAspie wrote:
ruennsheng wrote:
It's the US who stopped the Germans to attack further, man.


You are right, the US reversed the fortunes of the Allied forces against the Axis powers.



And guess how we accomplished THAT.....By choking off their oil supply! :mrgreen:
That is the REAL REASON why Japan lost WWII, because we cut off their oil supply. Part of the reason they attacked Pearl Harbor was that the US halted iron exports to Japan with the knowledge that the iron was used to build the japanese war machine.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Mar 2009, 12:46 pm

IdahoAspie wrote:

If it weren't for the Russians, Hitler would not have gotten as far as he did in the first place.


You have a point. The Nazis and the Commie split Poland between then. The Nazis main objective was the Polish Corridor to Gedansk (Danzig). Also, the Russians initially supplied oil to the Nazis.

ruveyn



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

09 Mar 2009, 2:53 pm

At the time of the Normandy landing, the Germans still had the capability to hold onto Berlin certainly. What did them in was Operation Bagration that was launched by the Soviets soon after the landing... the German losses in Bagration were astounding...



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

09 Mar 2009, 6:56 pm

I usually have little problems with Americans themselves (xcept the ultra religious ones, but even then i manage to get by by avoiding the touchy subjects). Most of the time, my qualms are with the leadership ala Bush or Reagan, trying to force their way around without asking anyone else (basicly acting like a school bully). I actually like democrats like Clinton or Obama <.< They might be odd, but they're much more sympathic than the two i've noted above.



IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

10 Mar 2009, 9:40 am

phil777 wrote:
I usually have little problems with Americans themselves (xcept the ultra religious ones, but even then i manage to get by by avoiding the touchy subjects). Most of the time, my qualms are with the leadership ala Bush or Reagan, trying to force their way around without asking anyone else (basicly acting like a school bully). I actually like democrats like Clinton or Obama <.< They might be odd, but they're much more sympathic than the two i've noted above.


Most Americans don't like Bush. He has like a 26% approval rating. Probably the worst since Truman.



IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

10 Mar 2009, 9:43 am

Haliphron wrote:
IdahoAspie wrote:
ruennsheng wrote:
It's the US who stopped the Germans to attack further, man.


You are right, the US reversed the fortunes of the Allied forces against the Axis powers.



And guess how we accomplished THAT.....By choking off their oil supply! :mrgreen:
That is the REAL REASON why Japan lost WWII, because we cut off their oil supply. Part of the reason they attacked Pearl Harbor was that the US halted iron exports to Japan with the knowledge that the iron was used to build the japanese war machine.


Well, that and we needed the iron for ourselves and the Lend Lease Act for Britain. FDR was trying to piss off Japan and Germany while helping GB at the same time.



PlanetLouise
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 25

10 Mar 2009, 7:43 pm

IdahoAspie wrote:
I am wondering why so many people the USA.

I understand that many people are upset about Iraq. But most Americans don't agree with that war either, and the administration.

Doesn't the help done by many of people for WWII, or the inventions it has made count for anything?

Doesn't or defense of smaller nations that are picked on count for anything?

How about the Billions of dollars in aid we give to Africa, Mexico, and other third world nations mean anything?

How about the trillions of debt we absorbed in stopping the USSR?

Why do you hate the USA?


Most people don't hate the USA. I don't. I don't like or hate it any more than I like or hate anywhere else I haven't been.

What a lot of people hate is the 'America is the world' attitude displayed by a minority of Americans. People who think America is better, that America is in charge or has a right to lead everyone else. That America is the only country that matters. That is seen as ignorance, and doesn't help.

I've highlighted that comment in your post, because Africa isn't a nation. There's about 53 countries in it.

I might have sounded like I hated America in my last two posts in your threads, but I don't. Not as a place. You can't hate a bit of land.



protest_the_hero
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Age: 187
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,011

10 Mar 2009, 10:37 pm

1.Their corporations use cheap labor.
2.War in Vietnam
3.War in Iraq



ruennsheng
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,523
Location: Singapore

11 Mar 2009, 6:40 am

I am ok with part one --- in fact if they can make goods with a high consistent quality (which Nike sometimes may not even pass my own 'cut') all the more I can find their suppliers and buy directly from them without the label and the assurance that what I am wearing is as good as the swoosh, without me paying more than I want.

As for the wars, it is ironic to see US waging too many wars based on its economic strength, which in turn weakens it so much that this is simultaneously the world's richest country as well as the largest debtor. Singapore is the 3rd to 7th richest country in the world and it is even richer than the US! And its education and health systems operate at a less cost more efficiently than the other 6 countries above it in national wealth rankings. Yes, the Michigan and California university and healthcare systems are considered to be amongst of the best of the world (I did not even mention the Harvard-MIT complex) but these are also the same states where millions of people still live in poverty, living in squalid conditions that I know of when I visit neigboring Malaysia. There are guys who work so hard but are either discriminated or discouraged by the high barriers of entry to success that they just drop out altogether from the climb up the socioeconomic ladder. (Not everyone will succeed when theyfinish community college, period.) And Detroit and South Los Angeles are now collapsing badly in the economic crisis, as they are hit more hardly as compared to a few years before. I do not hate the US but I certainly love the way they squander their fortunes so much that the average American is now less well-off than the average guys in the streets I meet --- in wars and all those stuff that do not really benefit them.

What I hate about the United States, though, is that there is truly a high cost maintaining the stereotypical standard of living as seen on TV that is not so desirable for the world. US owes many people, including Singaporeans, money. We want them back :P

If there is a near utopic society I know of, it would either be India or China. They are poor but they are rich in culture, resources and opportunity!



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Mar 2009, 6:50 am

ruennsheng wrote:

If there is a near utopic society I know of, it would either be India or China. They are poor but they are rich in culture, resources and opportunity!


In India the cow sh*t is a foot deep. China is ruled by thugs. This is what you like?

ruveyn



ruennsheng
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,523
Location: Singapore

11 Mar 2009, 7:48 am

Commies at least gave a race of only a handful of thousands of people to have a say in national affairs. Can United States ever claim the same thing?

I don't mind cow s**t as long as I can stretch to my fullest potentials --- their IIT and University of Delhi are as good (if not better) than those like Berkeley or Wisconsin.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Mar 2009, 9:26 am

ruennsheng wrote:
Commies at least gave a race of only a handful of thousands of people to have a say in national affairs. Can United States ever claim the same thing?



Sure. Jews vote in the U.S. probably at a higher percent than other groups.

Jews constitute less than 2.5 percent of the population.

There are other minorities as well that have a say.

ruveyn