It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 33
1
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter

Zibi? What are you talking about? I'm not Zibi and honestly I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And honestly, I don't care. If I was banned on an Internet forum I wouldn't be able to come back, would I?


Ah, of course you aren't Zibi.
hint: *clone*

Since you accused me of being a liar, I'd kindly ask you to respond on the proof I showed you on the previous page.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Mdv2]




posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
You know, I told a lie once. I mean.. I've told a butt load of lies actually, but once or twice I told more than a little white lie or a medium grey lie... once I told a gi-normous pitch-black lie.

But then I stopped doing it because, as fate would have it, I absolutely suck at serious lying. I get nervous. I tighten up, I look away, I get the urge to grin. I say "honestly" "frankly" "to tell you the truth" and such right before I lie. Sometimes I say it twice.

If I get caught, I go right to the "I dont know what you're talking bout" thing. I usually say that twice too. And I always throw up the "I couldn't possibly" defense, even if it's something that countless individuals have demonstrated the ability to do previously.

Man, I can't even tell you how much I completely and totally stink at lying.

But Jimmy I truly, deeply, honestly, as someone who knows a lot about how bad liars give themselves away, I want everyone to know that I believe you when you say you aren't Zibi, and I appologize for the accusation, honestly. I mean, I don't even know where I got that idea. How could I possibly have even thought that. I mean... I couldn't have thought that really, because its just so beyond reason and I'm not a very creative person. Honestly.


And as for your question, if we made it our policy to just blow the crap out of everyone who does the wrong thing, it would be the end of the world. You want to sell me on the morality argument, attack someone who has nothing to offer and who can put up a real fight. Punish North Korea. They have got to be the most evil people on the planet; I bet North Korea is the country that the monkies from the Wizard of Oz came from.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   


if we made it our policy to just blow the crap out of everyone who does the wrong thing, it would be the end of the world. You want to sell me on the morality argument, attack someone who has nothing to offer and who can put up a real fight. Punish North Korea.

I'm not saying that the US should attack every country that is wrongdoing or is not listening to US commands. Your theory is good, but you gave a bad example to back it up. North Korea should be liberated from the rule of its present dictator, who is murdering people.

I agree that the US fighting 50 countries is not a good idea, and I never proposed it. I do, however, want the US invade those few rogue states that need to be attacked.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
this is a silly subject, because you are talking about the WHOLE of europe vs the US alone!!


take a look at the major powers of europe:- France (nuclear power) Britain (Nuclear power), Germany....also countrys like turkey, sweden, belguim, holland, norway, denmark, finland, poland who can also project a powerful force (+ other countrys).

theres only going to be one winner i'm afraid, its nonsense to think otherwise...as for recent posts about the decline of the United States:-

It is difficult to imagine the United States becoming a second or third-rate power. Of course, the same was true of the formerly great Britain just a century ago.

From a resources standpoint, the British Empire was enormously wealthy. With far-flung colonies encircling the mightiest navy in history, it controlled the world's most strategic sea gates, thereby securing the world's trade. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Hawaii, the Falkland Islands, many Caribbean islands and much of Africa - including South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, Egypt and Sudan - all hoisted the Union Jack. Under the colonial relationship, the British colonies (later to be known as the British Commonwealth) had a guaranteed market for selling their raw resources: Mother Britain. Conversely, British manufacturing was guaranteed an exclusive market for its goods: all of the British colonies. On the back of this system, Britain and its colonies became among the richest nations on Earth.

The picture dramatically changed with World Wars I and II, which bled Britain of its finest men and the lion's share of its treasure. Though resources flowing from the colonies helped sustain Britain through both wars, by the end of World War II Britain was bankrupt. It could no longer sustain the operating costs associated with empire, particularly that of maintaining a military capable of protecting resource-supplying countries.

The resource demand void left by Britain was soon filled by the rising industrial power of the United States (and the developing markets of East Asia). The U.S. dominated the Western Hemisphere for the latter half of the 20th century, and when the Cold War ended, it became the world's lone superpower. Its economy and military might stood unrivaled.

But superpower status is incredibly expensive. And just as the costly tragedies of world war hobbled the British Empire's ship of state, so are the rising costs of sitting atop this dangerous and catastrophe-prone world taking their toll on America.

Troubling Trends
The American economy is now unsustainably bloated with debt. Where the U.S. once outproduced all other nations with its resource-fueled, self-sufficient economy, it is now the world's largest debtor nation by far - a net importer of goods from food to consumables, even the high-tech goods whose production it pioneered. Saddled on one side with wartime expenses from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on the other by pricey natural disasters and a jittery job market at home, America couldn't be facing a supply crunch and price hike on vital resources at a worse time.

Thus far, the U.S. has gotten away with carrying such a large deficit, partly because it owns the world's reserve currency and nations have been eager to hold dollars in their vaults. But this privileged positions is slipping away as confidence in the dollar falls and its status as a reserve currency is challenged by a younger, and increasingly attractive, rival - the euro. Over the last several years, central banks around the world have let go their dollar reserves while increasing their euro holdings.

(cont)

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Sepiroth]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
We are witnessing the beginning of a devastating trend: foreign capital flight.

As the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency shifts, so too will strategic power in global markets. Te U.S. will simply no longer enjoy the many advantages of owning the world's reserve currency. It happened to Great Britain after World War II. It will happen to the U.S.

But the forces eroding American dominance are more malevolent than just the capricious winds of currency valuation. From South America to Europe to Asia, many nations are calculating how best to cripple the world's larest consumer of resources and to assume control over its suppliers. The U.S.'s shaky economic position and absorbing commitment to the war on terror is providing these nations a unique opportunity.

For example, China saw Washington's post 9/11 disengagement from Latin America and the Caribbean, and the ensuing explosion in anti-Americanism in those regions, as an opportunity to pounce. It has moved in on America's oil supply in Venezuela and taken control of vital sea gates through which resources must travel into the U.S. - the Panama Canal and Freeport, Bahamas. The greatest concentration of U.S. oil refineries, terminals and storage facilities, including the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, is in the Gulf of Mexico region, which means that much of the oil must pass through the Caribbean - a route now significantly controlled by China. In addition, China is establishing a huge deep-water port in Gwadar, Pakistan, at the entrance to the Persian Gulf.

These troubling moves must be viewed in combination with those of two other powers that pose an increasing danger to U.S. trade traffic: the Islamic powers and the European Union. Islamic governments presently control access to Persian Gulf oil reserves through the gulfs of Oman and Aden and the Suez Canal, with China operating many of their major port facilities. Turkey, another Islamic state, stands at the crossroads of the Dardanelles, pathway of oil from Eurasia. The southern gateways of Jakarta and the Straits of Malacca, through which shipments from Pacific and Asian oil fields must be transported, are bordered by Islamic nations. The European Union controls the crucial northern gates of the Mediterranean and the North Sea, through which oil from Russia, the Caucasus and Eurasia passes.

Lack of control over these strategic gateways puts the U.S. in a very vulnerable position - one that is sure to be exploited in the coming resource war!

Can we recognize the possibility of foreign powers, when the moment is right, simply blockading these supply lines - shutting the gate on trade with the "mighty" U.S.?...

...Trends show that America's days as the world's singular superpower are numbered...

...As the United States is declining - like Britain in the 20th century - other powers are rising quickly, and their thirst for resources, primarily energy, is also growing rapidly. This need puts these countries in direct competition with the U.S. - and with each other.

the EU is the next thing, a united europe together and not at war (trading and working together) is the most powerful superpower on earth.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Sepiroth]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sepiroth
take a look at the major powers of europe:- France (nuclear power) Britain (Nuclear power), Germany....also countrys like turkey, sweden, belguim, holland, norway, denmark, finland, poland who can also project a powerful force (+ other countrys).

France and Germany are major European powers?


Out of the countries you mentioned, only Great Britain and Poland have decent militaries. All the other countries that you mentioned are militarily weaklings. This is the TRUTH and it will not change in the future due to two simple reasons. First off, no country is going to be a military power if it spends 60% of its defence budget on pays for soldiers and only 19% on equipment. Secondly, Continental European countries, except for Poland, like being militarily weak. You also ignore the fact that Turkey is not a European country.



Troubling Trends
The American economy is now unsustainably bloated with debt.

Wrong. America's debt burden is 64.7%, that is, America's public debt is 64.7% of America's GDP. Because budget receipts have risen, the deficit will be terminated and the debt will be paid back.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
Out of the countries you mentioned, only Great Britain and Poland have decent militaries. All the other countries that you mentioned are militarily weaklings. This is the TRUTH and it will not change in the future due to two simple reasons. First off, no country is going to be a military power if it spends 60% of its defence budget on pays for soldiers and only 19% on equipment. Secondly, Continental European countries, except for Poland, like being militarily weak. You also ignore the fact that Turkey is not a European country.

Yes great britain with its mighty army that cant afford protective armour or even the correct type of camoflauge for its troops in both peace time and war time....yes I can see how that is SOOO much better than having a fully equiped army that hasnt been in a major war for the last decade...

One question what is your standard of weak?



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   


Yes great britain with its mighty army that cant afford protective armour or even the correct type of camoflauge for its troops in both peace time and war time....yes I can see how that is SOOO much better than having a fully equiped army that hasnt been in a major war for the last decade...

At least Great Britain can independently project power anywhere it wishes, has a strong navy and has nukes (there is only 1 other country in Europe that has nuclear weapons).



One question what is your standard of weak?

Find out the facts about the armed forces of France and Germany and you'll find out.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
*cough* 2 european countrys have nuclear weapons, britain & france!!

and wtf poland?
now we know your zibi.

ps:- hi devilwasp, ^the most patriotic briton on ATS^



[edit on 30-7-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
*cough* 2 european countrys have nuclear weapons, britain & france!!

Yes, only 2. Out of them only Great Britain is a country that has a decent military.

France can't even project power for the peacekeeping operation on the Ivory Coast. They had to rent helicopters from the US.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Having spent many years as a Soldier in the UK forces i have worked alongside many other countries. I was impressed by the Polish, The Germans and to some degree the French. I was highly unimpressed with the US forces i have worked with (All Kit no Training) Hell we even had to paint the top of our camoflauged Armoured Personell Carriers bright Orange whilst in Bosnia. The reason: To stop the US from firing at us which totally defeated the object of having a camofluaged vehicle.

Also whilst based on the border of Iraq they had the most excellent of Marquees with hot water, Televisions and soft drinks whilst 1 mile away we slept rough on the floor outside, ate ration packs and had a shave with the water we had just boiled our boil in the bag meal with.

I have upmost respect for our ally the US however their skills come in quantity and not quality.

Quality counts for more when your patrolling hostile territory as part of a 8 man team. Trust me i should know



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter

Scuds. They were able to reach only Greece, but I've already explained that issue.

Yes, we ALL heard Saddam say his Scuds would rain over the beautiful greek beaches and islands...



And you are wrong. No one has yet disproven me. No one has yet proven my claims (backed up by proof). Simply those people saying "we are right and the US economy is collapsing", simply these people saying simple sentences not backed up by any evidence, is not disproving me, it is just proving the ignorance of those people.
mmm...yes you have been disproven, Mdv2 with the inflation issue, I did with your wwII BS, you are the one talking without proof, saddam was never linked to Al-Qaeda.



France became "a nuclear power" in 1960, 15 years after the beginning of the Cold War. GB became a nuclear power in 1952, 7 years after the Cold War began. During the entire Cold War the nuclear arsenals of both of these countries were small, and still are today.

Small, in comparison to your american heros, yet large if you compare them to...let's say, Poland's? yep CERO NUKES. Those arsenals were defensive, not offensive ones, but what would you know...there are no books in caves...




Another lie not backed up by any proof. That's what I was talking about. You, an ignorant America-hater, just write claims "America was, is and will be weak, France is powerful and I am right because I am because I am the unmistakenable one". FYI - throughout all of the Cold War America had the best conventional weapons of all kinds in the world. Read about them at the GlobalSecurity website. Besides, in Europe, American eurostrategic missiles were not installed until the 1980s, yet the USSR did not attack. The reason: American military presence.
Ok, here comes a big spoonful on stfu, ready? open wide American Strategy for Europe




The reason for why people are dying in Iraq is terrorism. Iraq, prior to liberation, was a country that supported Al-Qaeda, and the terrorists don't want to lose a supporter.
You obviously know the same about Iraq than about WWII...nothing. Iraq could never be linked to AL-Qaeda, fighting there is about iraqis supporting American, who are killed by both sunni and chiite terrorists, the same ones that plant Ieds.




I recall the Iraqis standing in long lines waiting to vote in popular elections (at which turnout is higher than in all European countries) and the Iraqi PM saying that Iraqi is a frontline of the war on terrorism.

You mean the US puppet? Well he better say that, since the Americans appointed him for something, LOL. I DON'T RECALL IRAQIS CALLING THE US TO HAVE A BLOODBATH THERE.




Now you have proven that you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER about history. Europe is not where democracy was born, it was born in Great Britain, a country lying on an island off European coast. It is the first country where a parliament was founded, and where all people (including women - Great Britain was one of the first countries that gave its women the right to vote) could vote. And nowadays, European national governments have no authority over their countries, Europe is being run by the EU.
Yes, and United Kingdom, as they like to be called, I recall, it's not a continent of it's own, and is culturally PART OF EUROPE, not Asia, or Africa, EUROPE.




Totally wrong. Poland was the FIRST country to say no to Hitler's arrogant demands, while the cowardish Western Europeans were appeasing Hitler. In 1938, Hitler demanded that we awarded Germany an exterritorial corridor from Brandenburg to Prussia so that the Jerries could build a motorway and a railway line. Poland refused to fulfill that demand.
And Poland was the FIRST to be crushed...really heroic...



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter

I'm not talking about the entire war, I'm talking just about the battle of Britain. The Polish AF deployed two fighter squadrons, the 302nd and the 303rd, each of the same size as today's USAF fighter wing, to GB, and they played a crucial role in the battle of Britain. Without them, the Brits would not have defended themselves, their AF was too small at that time.

HoHoHo, merry christmas dear caveman, yet I fear you are WRONG. Poland only sent pilots

The RAF recognises [1] 2440 British and 510 overseas pilots who flew at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the Royal Air Force or Fleet Air Arm during the period 10 July to 31 October 1940.
Overall, only 144 Polish pilots took part in the Battle

sooo, out of almost 3000 pilots, only 144 pilots took action in that battle...YET THEY WERE DECISIVE? nah, go back to your cave.

And BTW: My dear ignorant caveman, I give you proof of your BS, you give NO PROOF against that. So whenever statistics say you're wrong, they don't prove my points?
Well that's an easy way to go around people shutting you up, isn't it?
You here are alone, since The Vagabond, Mdv2 and myself have all proven you are talking loads of...you know what. Maybe time to stop living in denial and sucking up to the US?

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Ioseb_Jugashvili]

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Ioseb_Jugashvili]

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Ioseb_Jugashvili]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Thank you JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter for bringing facts into this thread and explaining yourself so eloquently. Not that I think ALL of Europe are pushovers or anything. But people will always talk bad about the US, and suffer themselves to wishful delusions such as the US economy is being destroyed and the military are pushovers. But if it makes them feel better, then I say let it be. Same with religion.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
At least Great Britain can independently project power anywhere it wishes,

Lol WHAT!
Have you read the naval plan for the RN over the next decade?
"Must be able to operate more effectively in a coalition."
The RN has no stand alone power projection.



has a strong navy

You mean the one thats getting scrapped and doesnt have air cover and wont have it for nearly a decade?


and has nukes (there is only 1 other country in Europe that has nuclear weapons).

Ohhh our 16 nuclear missiles?
Soooo scary.



Find out the facts about the armed forces of France and Germany and you'll find out.
[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

Lol yeah nice retort basically: "Go sod yourself and dont ask awkward questions", the french military has its own carrier with SUPER SONIC aircraft, yes planes that can actually fly above the speed of sound AND can fire beyond visual range.

Germany?
They have a defensive armed forces (ever read thier constitution?) the reason they dont have nukes was because people where a little worried about another hitler coming to power in germany.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
france and germany have a very powerful military, even though Germany can only spend about 5% or so on military spending, when your the third largest economy on earth, that's a lot! as for france, they have nukes, they have a great military too. the german tank, the panther and the leopard are two very very successful and well built tanks!



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
yes you have been disproven, Mdv2 with the inflation issue,

Incorrect. It was me who has disproven him, not vice versa. He was the one who claimed wrongly that the US inflation is higher than the Fed claims. I said that unlike him, the Fed is a credible source. And BTW, inflation in the US is not 4.32%, it's 3.2%. Link: www.cia.gov...

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
I did with your wwII BS,

You are not proving anything, you are merely showing your ignorance and your total lack of knowledge about WWII.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
you are the one talking without proof,

On the contrary, it's you US-haters who are not providing any proof. I am (i.e. I provide links to websites that prove me right), and the fact that you - an ignorant person - are dismissing it doesn't mean it's not proof.


saddam was never linked to Al-Qaeda.

Wrong. He financed Zarqawi's reconvalescence in a Baghdad hospital.



Those arsenals were defensive, not offensive ones, but what would you know...there are no books in caves...

They were neither defensive nor offensive, they were useless.






Iraq could never be linked to AL-Qaeda,

Disproven above.



You mean the US puppet? Well he better say that, since the Americans appointed him for something, LOL. I DON'T RECALL IRAQIS CALLING THE US TO HAVE A BLOODBATH THERE.

And again, you are not proving anything but merely showing your ignorance. If you were not ignorant, you'd not ignore in the fact that he was elected in free, democratic elections by the Iraqis themselves, unlike EC commissioners.




And Poland was the FIRST to be crushed...really heroic...


It was not crushed, simply the Polish territory was occupied. Polish soldiers continued to fight, and they fought the Jerries in large numbers. Poles are the ONLY Allied nation that has fought on ALL European fronts of WWII and on the North African front. Although you dismissed the Polish fighter pilots, these few airmen have played a crucial role in the Battle of Britain, having shot down a large part of those Luftwaffe aircraft that attacked GB. Had it not been for them, Luftwaffe would still have hundreds of planes left, and wouldn't have lost the fighting. Polish soldiers were also instrumental in winning the battle of Monte Cassino.



The RN has no stand alone power projection.

Another ignorant person. How about the LPDs HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious?



france and germany have very powerful militaries

Keep wishing.



even though Germany can only spend about 5% or so on military spending

Wrong. Germany spends only 1.5% of its GDP on the military (link: www.cia.gov...), and with the current budget deficit of 0.1 trillion dollars, they'll have to reduce military expenditures. Besides, they spend 60% of their military budget on pays for soldiers and only 12% of it on equipment. Link: www.nationalreview.com...



when your the third largest economy on earth, that's a lot!

They don't have the third-largest economy on earth, they have the fifth-largest. Link: www.cia.gov...



the german tank, the panther and the leopard

The Panther tank was a WWII tank.



Welfare Benefits - we have good welfare schemes to help support ourselfs and our family if we are out of work, we also have good schemes to help people find work...in america 1 option again military (source) - Fahrenheit 9/11

america may well be the richest country in the world as of 2006, yet american citizens don't feel the benefits of living in the richest country.

YEAH! FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT! Fight for lavish social privileges, no matter how well or unwell you do your job. You can be sure that employers are just lining up to employ people who demand lavish social privileges.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
Having spent many years as a Soldier in the UK forces i have worked alongside many other countries. I was impressed by the Polish, The Germans and to some degree the French. I was highly unimpressed with the US forces i have worked with (All Kit no Training) Hell we even had to paint the top of our camoflauged Armoured Personell Carriers bright Orange whilst in Bosnia. The reason: To stop the US from firing at us which totally defeated the object of having a camofluaged vehicle.

Also whilst based on the border of Iraq they had the most excellent of Marquees with hot water, Televisions and soft drinks whilst 1 mile away we slept rough on the floor outside, ate ration packs and had a shave with the water we had just boiled our boil in the bag meal with.

I have upmost respect for our ally the US however their skills come in quantity and not quality.

Quality counts for more when your patrolling hostile territory as part of a 8 man team. Trust me i should know


Most of the US servicemen I have known have been very professional, although that may just be the people I know, such as a First Sergeant in the Rangers, two snipers (a marine and an army guy) and an immigrant Combat Engineer who got shot in the phase in Afghanistan and is reenlisting with the army this year...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Continental European militaries, except for the armed forces of Poland, are a joke. They all spend the majority of their military budgets on pays for soldiers and only a minority of it on military equipment. As a result, France and Germany couldn't take part in war in Iraq, but they were too proud to admit that.

Regarding the question of whether war in Iraq was justified or not, read these articles:
www.danielpipes.org...
www.danielpipes.org...


[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Oh dear...I'll guess I'll have to shut someone up again, since you're the one starting to call ignorant other people...I'll make my duty to prove your utter ignorance, dear polish caveman...here we go

Originally posted by...Mr.Caveman also known as: JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
Incorrect. It was me who has disproven him, not vice versa. He was the one who claimed wrongly that the US inflation is higher than the Fed claims. I said that unlike him, the Fed is a credible source. And BTW, inflation in the US is not 4.32%, it's 3.2%. Link: www.cia.gov...

Incorrect, he debunked your lies about Us economy, which you obviously know nothing about, wonder if you have even been there...and I'll even quote him, so you'll read it SLOWLY...and by any means, you're the least credible source in this forum, you think Poland has the ONLY decent military(if you can call what they have decent)




Originally posted by Mdv2
Why the US inflation rate is actually two percent higher than the official rate




The historically low levels of real interest rates (even using the understated CPI data)
suggest a supportive outlook for gold prices. At this stage we see little likelihood of a
significant rise in real US interest rates given the precarious state of consumer
indebtedness.
Within this positive scenario for gold prices we examine the risks that the US economy
could enter a period of either rapidly rising inflation or, alternatively, move into
recession and possibly a deflationary slump, both of which would be likely to put even
more upward pressure on the gold price.


The changes in CPI methodology since the Clinton Administration are estimated by
Williams to have led to the CPI figures systematically understating the true level of US inflation by 2.7% on an ongoing basis.

Source: Cheuveux Gold Report - PDF Format




You are not proving anything, you are merely showing your ignorance and your total lack of knowledge about WWII.

Oh yes I proved, only 144 polish pilots took action in the battle for britain, far from decisive if the total was 3000


On the contrary, it's you US-haters who are not providing any proof. I am (i.e. I provide links to websites that prove me right), and the fact that you - an ignorant person - are dismissing it doesn't mean it's not proof.

Not a US-hater, it's just called education, which you obviously have none...

Wrong. He financed Zarqawi's reconvalescence in a Baghdad hospital.



No, I’m sorry, but before saying something I actually research it, you don’t, sorry. The Americans themselves admit this, and here is proof: Iraq/Al-Qaeda link still not found

US View on the Iraq/Al-Qaeda “connection” Here



Senator Ted Kennedy (D–Massachusetts) on October 16. “Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one.” “We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from al Qaeda. It was not.”






They were neither defensive nor offensive, they were useless.


Well, if you call useless not depending on the US nuclear umbrella, you must live pretty below the surface…





Disproven above.

Proven above, on both links, hope you can read long sentences though…might be hard, try


And again, you are not proving anything but merely showing your ignorance. If you were not ignorant, you'd not ignore in the fact that he was elected in free, democratic elections by the Iraqis themselves, unlike EC commissioners.

I guess your vision of free elections means your country being occupied by a foreign nation, cohersed by terrorists caused by that same invasion (Try looking for terrorists attacks in Iraq before war) and your PM appointing Americans as advisors for the oil industry…thanks but no thanks




It was not crushed, simply the Polish territory was occupied. Polish soldiers continued to fight, and they fought the Jerries in large numbers. Poles are the ONLY Allied nation that has fought on ALL European fronts of WWII and on the North African front.
Yeah, simply you had to borrow British or American equipment, becoming an army that had to be sustained and equipped (obviously, since your victory in Poland meant loss of all your resources)by the Americans and British, had your population slaughtered, and polish jews rounded in the infamous ghettos, but no, it wasn’t crushed…



these few airmen, have played a crucial role in the Battle of Britain, having shot down a large part of those Luftwaffe aircraft

Well, you got one right, they were few, and they played a role, crucial NO, 144 pilots cannot be called crucial in no terms, anyone here with a brain (abstain yourself Mr Caveman, you don’t fill the requirement) can prove me otherwise please.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join