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.

 

Thank You Germany & France...for the knife in the back!

page: 17
0
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
As far as the French being good fighters...if you spent more time listening to your history teacher and less time goofing off, you will find the last time the French fought well was under Napoleon.


And Napoleon wasn't even French! He was born in Ajaccio, Corsica!




posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I am sorry, but if anyone was standing by the other one, it was the US standing by Europe. Russia was not going to invade the US - their tanks were lined up facing western Europe.


Yes, so the US reason for military presence in Europe was not altruistic at all, it was simply a US outpost, not more, not less. The US should be grateful to Europe for allowing the stationing of troops there.



Maybe because we are SUPPOSED to be allies! That is the point! If you aren't, make your intentions known! Thats why the US gets pissed at Europe, because you take when it's good for you, and when it comes time to prove your as loyal to us as we are to you, we hear "why, because some of our grandfathers done a deal with you?"


Hold on. When the US is circumventing the UN or other institution, how does Europe feel about being an ally, and how do France and Germany feel about being called "old" (hence no longer relevant) Europe? You diss Europe, you get dissed back. What's so hard to get?



Absolutely pathetic. Where is your sense of loyalty? What is the problem with having a TWO way relationship where we look out for each other?


Right now, the US looking out for Europe is a preposterous assumption. It's not.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Those that criticize Germany's and France's "socialist" economies are not taking heed. The citizens of Europe more and more are very happy about being able to spend more time with family, shortened working hours, more vacation time, etc. while worrying less and less about materialistic things. Those that criticize are behind the times, and listen to those who don't know of what they speak.

It ain't the pay, it's the way!!!



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Please, we gave you billions of dollars worth of stuff for free and didn't know if we would get paid back. How is that NOT a big risk?

Hardly "free" there was a downpayment.


[qutoe]
I am sorry, but if anyone was standing by the other one, it was the US standing by Europe. Russia was not going to invade the US - their tanks were lined up facing western Europe.

Yes and which country after europe would they have gone for?


I don't see the advantage of controlling what China buys because they can't get anything that good from anywhere else! What is so hard to understand about that?

Thats the point thought, we can sell them the things we WANT to sell them, control thier advance.
I would have thought you would apreciate this...


You guys have better electronic stuff then Russia. If it was equal they would get the cheaper stuff from Russia!

See above


That is akin to giving a teen heroin so he won't smoke some weed because at least you know how much he will do. It makes no sense!

Its equal to controling the dosage and concentration of weed, water it down and he wont be adicted. See above.



Maybe because we are SUPPOSED to be allies! That is the point! If you aren't, make your intentions known! Thats why the US gets pissed at Europe, because you take when it's good for you, and when it comes time to prove your as loyal to us as we are to you, we hear "why, because some of our grandfathers done a deal with you?"

Allies look after each other and themselves , even when the person thier allied to doesnt agree with how its done.
If we control what and how they the get the weapons then you have control, would it not be better to control thier growth?


Absolutely pathetic. Where is your sense of loyalty? What is the problem with having a TWO way relationship where we look out for each other?

Wheres our loyalty?
How about those poor blackwatch lads that died inplace of your marines!
Huh or what about korea? we stood by you then but I hear no great thanks.
We stood by you during GW1 but I hear no thanks for that.
Our loyalty has been proven, time and time again.....WITH OUR BLOOD!



If this is the attitude of most of Europe, let us Yanks know. At least that way we can cut you out of all our programs like the F-35 because you will sell us out. At least this way we can stop sharing vital secrets with you. At least this way when we are attacked it won't be with aid from our supposed ally.

We wont sell you out for god sake, if we were going to sell you out would we follow you into iraq? Or the wars I listed above, but if you want us to cut out of all joint programs go ahead, we already own a large portion of the companies involved.



Yes we did. We had an embargo (if my memory serves me) on them that they could not withstand - basically we denied them oil (my, the more things change, the more they stay the same).


Obviously they couldn't just dry up, so we forced them to attack us.

And no - it didn't backfire. It had the exact effect wanted. We got attacked, but didn't have any of our most important ships sunk. Not a single aircraft carrier was in harbor when they attacked. They were on patrol


You still lost thousands of men and women.....hardly a "victory" if thats a victory then what do you call loseing?


At this point in the war, USN strategy was ahead of the rest of the world - we valued carriers as the main capitol ships over battleships.

Thats because you had time and money to review them, we didnt.



Rumble over you he would. He had a VASTLY superior military. You take away Russia taking the brunt of his effort and all US backing - your a goner, sorry buddy.

You forget one part, this superior military cant cross 3 miles of water, know why?
The RN home fleet was ready to fight and die stopping it, simulations prove the invasion (operation sea lion) would have failed misrabley.
Also you would sell to russia because it makes a buck and hey, if you can make a buck safely then do so.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As I have said seemingly thousands of times, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIVIL AND MILITARY AVIONICS.

How?
Keeping an aircraft in the air has VERY similar ideas, add to the fact the latest tech from boeing would go tactical from practical.


That is what China is after - electronic equipment for their airpower.

Even if you are just selling them some torps or rifles, if it helps them at all, it HURTS US.

They are after it and we should fill that demand, with bad equipment.
It doesnt help them if the code is full of bugs and the tech is 30 years old now does it



So would you hurt your friend to line your pockets? YES OR NO?

No we wouldnt, we would rather line our pockets and get on the good side of both the allies and the chinese....unless you would rather see thier progress go unhindered?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
There is not going to be a war between the US and China, unless it begins with a pre-emptive attack by the Americans. War with the US is simply not part of Chinese policy or ideology. The intention of the communist leadership is to gain industrial, economic and cultural superiority over the West by attrition over the next thousand years.

Conflict between the two nations would be massively destructive and is not in either side's interests. Any suspicion of a potential outbreak of war which I have seen on this board atleast, has been based on American paranoia. You seem to crave the irrational fear which searching the world for potential enemies gives you.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The US came to your aid when you DESPERATLY needed us.


- If you agree with the point about shared interests then you surely 'get' that you desparately needed to get into it all too - although very late as usual.


This is the exact attitude I am talking about.


- Excuse me, what I am seeing here is a hissy-fit that 'we' will not act with gratitude at 'your' every whim.

Maybe you own 'attitude' could stand a little examination, hmm?


We backed you and spilt blood with you, and the fact is you were stuck on your little island.


- The fact is 'we' have spilt blood in defence of 'our' shared interests, time and time again.

......and by the way we were certainly holding our own on our "little island" and along with the commonwealth forces that helped us (all) enormously were taking the fight to the nazis around the globe. Actually.

Pity it took a direct attack on the USA in WW2 for 'you' to see the danger sufficiently to act, hmm?


Without the US you would have waited to see if Germany beat Russia, because if they did you were toast.


- Interesting theory, but then as is sadly common to many Americans you utterly ignore the commonwealth forces and their resources and imagine a walk-over (which they were utterly incapable of in the almost 1.5yrs - we stood alone without US help......and nearer 2.5yrs if you count the time it took for 'you guys' to get here in numbers to do anything much effective).

Of course the fact that Germany was never going to defeat the USSR also comes into this (as 'we' knew right from the start when 'we' tried to stop Stalin siding with Hitler at the begining of WW2).


Really Sminky? Because when we say jump, the UK says how high


- You shouldn't believe too much of your own propaganda mate!


J/K sminky, you Euros are your own boss. Thats fine with me.


- Great, then what is this nonsense all about, hmmm?


Your right Sminky, I did say millions, when it was only about 1 million...


- But not killed, right?
Only by including the wounded is it closer to the one million mark (but not quite).


Regardless, we have sent about 20 MILLION men to defend you, and this is exactly the attitude we get: "we owe you nothing."


- No this is just ridiculous.
What 'you' get are free allies ......

.....which means allies who will not simply follow every whim you have nor (like any real friend) simply agree with anything 'you' say; pity that in todays US so many clearly fail to appreciate the value of a true, frank and honest friend.


For a second I thought maybe you guys would look after a tiny little thing like not giving military technology to our potential enemies after all we have done for you...gues not though.


- It might help if you could detail what 'military tech' it is you are so worked up about because to date we have an embargo on and sell less than half (IIRC) of what the US sells to China.

I recall an old reworked 1970's French radar being sold (but surely this tech is ancient and not in the same league as even the (much smaller but far far more modern) radar in the Boeing 787? Hmmmm?

.....or does the label 'civillian' on the radar make that high-tech ok?)


No, actually if you actually READ my posts you would see the MANY times I said the word "MUTUAL" - but don't let what I said stop you from getting all fired up.


- Most amusing.
I am about as far from "fired up" as it is possible to be.


The FACT is it was in our intrest, but it was for YOUR lives.


- Er but the logic of the shared interest is that it might well have our lives initially but ultimately it was your lives too.


Russia wouldn't have touched the US if we didn't get involved.


- To begin with that might have been true. The belief that this would not have been the case ultimately is why 'we' all assisted each other, right?

.....and the economy and living standards of a truely isolated America would hardly have been what came to be, right?


How can you just throw away the fact that a country half way around the world put it's self in danger of total thermo nuclear war over your continent


- How can you just throw away the fact that the entire western continent of Europe stood (and on all matters of real substance still stands) with the USA no matter what ill founded situations the USA manages to get herself into?


- the same one which caused BOTH damn world wars.


- Hmmm, the full and actual causes of WW1 & WW2 are not entirely free from the presence and influence of Americans (politicians or business people).


With the attitude of people like you I wonder...


- What "attitude", it is an 'imagine if....' question.



Oh yeah, those tanks massed at your boarders and millions of soldiers ready to storm Europe were there for show


You are smarter then that Sminky


- Yeah, smart enough to know that one side massing on one side is likely to lead to the other massing on the other.

Throw in the loony paranoia of USA's completely imaginary 1950's 'bomber gap' and the similarly totally imaginary 1960's 'missile gap' along with a strategy of nuclear equipped IRBMs ringing the USSR and her allies and a near nuclear war if they dare to attempt anything similar in one spot (Cuba) and hey presto, well what do you know, by the early 1980's we all really do have a very real problem.

A problem we fostered as much as they (and which we now know nearly cost us all the earth - on at least 3 occassions! - in accidental nuclear holocaust)


Sorry to break it to you, but there are other markets besides Europe.


- From 1945 - 1990 the USA made a vast fortune from Europe.


On the other hand, you WOULD be speaking German or Russian right now, and probably would have been killed for being so outspoken long ago.


- There's that wild imagination of yours again AMM, it's pretty odd!


Like I said, Europe is not the only market in the world. Besides, in case you haven't noticed there is a bit of a trade imbalance.


- Nice try but you'll find that the reason the USA did this in the first place is not misplaced altruism but because of the economic wealth and power generated by becoming the dominant economy in the world.

US trade went nuts relatively recently (it ballooned from the 'normal' peaks and troughs to a pretty much permanent deficit in Reagans time, the 1980's and from then on).

Nevertheless it was western European agreements (most famously Bretton Woods in 1944) made with the US that made the US a fortune for decades - a wealth 'you' guys continue to exploit to this very day what with your currency that really should be worth considerably less than it is (due to your true economic situation re your global trade imbalance and debt).

Don't you know about any of this stuff?


Oh congrats - you actually contributed to your own defense.


- Reduced to sidestepping the point AMM?
The point was that Europe spent billions enriching the US economy.


And please, show me where European troops were based in the US protecting us.


- If we had had the war in the continental USA you might have seen European forces of occupation as it was the war was in Europe so not unnaturally that was where the US forces of occupation were.



General volume of trade? You mean how you sell and we buy? That helps you, not us.


- You're only considering the recent position, postwar the US sold staggering amounts to the rebuilding economies for decades afterwards.


In case you haven't noticed, the US did fine in the 'base' department.


- You obviously don't know many of the useful bases 'you' have today were British bases 'we' were forced to hand over to 'you' as payment for some of the kit 'you' sold 'us' (at top dollar).

Guam being the best example.....came in handy that one, huh?


Loans???? Don't even bring that up.


- Why not? They are still being paid and are still a drag on our economy.


Just look at WWII. You guys would have fallen in a matter of months if not for us.


- Except we didn't actually at all. We managed (very effectively) a couple of years alone.

Why should we think we would have done worse in time?
We had enigma for a start, better jet engine tech than Germany on the way, material resouces - which they lacked and an emerging bomber and an existant naval fleet the Germans could only dream of.


So when we ask the EU not to sell weapons to China that undermine our military, you feel it's just a simple dissagreement?


- No. What you mean is when 'you' ask 'us' not to sell weaponary to China.....

.... and yet in the stuff we all do sell outsell us 2-1+ I think we have a right to say 'hang on what the hell is going on here'?


Well, I guess the next time there is a balkans, we should sell them some weapons.


- I have no doubt 'you' (or your 'private business people') did back then and still do now.


No Sminky, the US preserved YOUR freedom. Without us, you don't have it - period.


- Period nothing. It was collective security and we paid and continue to pay (especially the UK).


I actually laughed out loud at that. Nice joke - it was one of those "so bad it's funny" ones.


- No.
It's actually a perfect example of just how you have no clue how we see things and arrogantly dismiss the very idea that it might be seen a little differently to what you imagine accepted reality might be.


They all would have, and you know it.


- No we don't; that is the point.
That is why France and the UK spent so much ensuring we were not actually so utterly beholden to US whim.......

......or did you imagine there was some other reason for shelling out such vast resouces on our independant nuclear weapons?
Wake up.


There is a difference between selling some Boeings and selling MILITARY AIRCRAFT.


- I realise this is the line but you must admit that giving the Chinese 787's means they (also through the maintence they will do) will have access to
1) composite materials
2) the fabrication and useage of composite materials
3) the most modern and efficient jet engine tech available
4) the mosty modern flight control computer systems available
5) the most modern integrated engine/fuel management systems available
6) the latest civillian radar and communications systems
7) satellite navigation systems.....

....hell even things as simple as the lightweight wiring systems will be the latest going and fully transferable to their own military programs.

But according to (some) Americans absolutely none of this cutting edge stuff has any possible use in the Chinese military.

Then there are the computer systems they now have access to thanks to the sale of a big piece of IBM.

......and you want to moan and whine about possible future European sales which might lead to an increase in their military capabilities?!
Wake up.




What military stuff we sell that is cutting edge


- You yourselves are increasing their military capabilities.

Yet you attempt to smokescreen the facts with this nonsense about possible future European sales. Ifs, buts and maybes......and it's all ok if the USA does it.
It's purely ridiculous hypocritical nonsense.


we most CERTAINLY do not sell to a nation that represents a direct rival to the UK.


- China is not a rival to the USA, nor is she a threat.
The USA might try its hardest to make it so but the concept is laughable and only given the tinniest smidgeon of creedance thanks to Taiwan (and as the quoted poll shows even the Taiwanese aren't in the least bit interested in the independance that might provoke China.)

(Funny that huh? The Taiwanese people won't play that game and so many South Koreans won't play the 'hate the north' game either.)


First, there is a HUGE difference in selling a Boeing passanger aircraft with civillian computer tech and avionics and selling MILITARY aircraft and hardware


- You seem to want to ignore the capability of a determined nation to 'catch up' (you'll probably want to call it 'build up' or 'threaten') and the point from where they are starting now.
It remains a fact the USA is transferring tech (and those doing it know excactly what they are up to).


Then you go off on IBM. You do know that the part of IBM that was sold was simply the MANUFACTURE OF PERSONAL COMPUTERS.

It has no military aplication WHAT-SO-EVER.


- Yeah right.
The understanding of and the ability to manufacture the latest computer tech (coupled with the programming expertise they already have) has (in your opinion) no impact there at all?!


Funny I remember not so long ago a US hissy-fit over Playstation 2's being sold to China in the mid 1990's and how they then were supposed to represent a huge leap in Chinese capacity and apparant 'threat'.

But I guess in the land of the right-wing hypocrite that all becomes meaningless when there are sales for US companies to make.



[edit on 14-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Hardly "free" there was a downpayment.


Wow - so we would only get stiffed for 80-90% if you lost


Just admit it - IT WAS A HUGE RISK!




Yes and which country after europe would they have gone for?


Not the US - we were their nuclear equal. You (Europe collectively) gave up hundreds of nukes to one.



Thats the point thought, we can sell them the things we WANT to sell them, control thier advance.
I would have thought you would apreciate this...


I am sorry, this doesn't make sense. If it doesn't HELP them, they won't BUY it. If you sell them something that helps them, you are still helping them. It's not like they are just oging to take your stuff and install it in their stuff. They are going to take the TECHNOLOGY behind it.

Developing things like that takes TIME and MONEY. You are allowing them to LEAP this time (and thus making our lead smaller) by selling them stuff. Not to mention it would cost more to develope from scratch then to buy.

It's like a great text book. It takes years to write, but it only takes a day or two to read. The author still has a better grasp on the subject then the reader, but it has gone from a 100-1 lead to a 100-90 lead.



Allies look after each other and themselves , even when the person thier allied to doesnt agree with how its done.


So selling a potential enemy of ours weapons more advanced then they have themselves is your way of looking after us?




If we control what and how they the get the weapons then you have control, would it not be better to control thier growth?


Thats the point, you ARE NOT controling their growth - you are hastening it! I can not overstate that! Would you then sell China older nuclear missle designs that are not modern by your standards, but are more advanced then theirs? How about stealth technology? If we were to switch positions, should the US sell them the F-117? They have limited stealth tech, yours and ours is better. The Nighthawk is in the middle. How about some sub quiting techinques? Would you sell them those?

This is insanity.



Wheres our loyalty?


Yes, in regards to selling weapons to our military rival, WHERE IS YOUR LOYALTY?



How about those poor blackwatch lads that died inplace of your marines!


I could not apreciate their sacrafice more. I thank them for standing side by side with our soldiers, and for paying the ultimate price to defend our mutual ways of life.



Huh or what about korea? we stood by you then but I hear no great thanks.


You will hear it from me if it ever comes up. I thank your nation.



We stood by you during GW1 but I hear no thanks for that.


Not true - I give credit ALWAYS when it is do. I defy you to find a single time I have ever denied the contribution that the UK has made in any of these shared conflicts.



Our loyalty has been proven, time and time again.....WITH OUR BLOOD!


Yes, but it seems now YOUR POCKETS will betray that loyalty.



We wont sell you out for god sake, if we were going to sell you out would we follow you into iraq? Or the wars I listed above, but if you want us to cut out of all joint programs go ahead, we already own a large portion of the companies involved.


That is the thing - you ARE literally selling us out! You are lining your pockets by selling weapons to our enemies! I also find it extremely ironic that should China attack Taiwan, and thus, attack the US naval ships that will undoubtedly be placed there, YOU will also being killed with your own weapons.



You still lost thousands of men and women.....hardly a "victory" if thats a victory then what do you call loseing?


It is a victory because our goal was accomplished. We needed a politically viable way to stray from our stated isolationist doctrine for the good of us all.

We lost few important naval assets - all of our subs and carriers were out to sea.

It is much like how during WWII, the allies found out (through the enigma codes) that the Germans were going to hit some allied convoy (i think).The powers that be decided that the sacrifice of those men was needed in order to keep the fact that we had their codes a secret.





You forget one part, this superior military cant cross 3 miles of water, know why?
The RN home fleet was ready to fight and die stopping it, simulations prove the invasion (operation sea lion) would have failed misrabley.


Even so, Hitler controls from Russia to the edge of Western Europe. He has hundreds of millions of men to draw on, and the most resources. He regroups in a few months and takes you.



Also you would sell to russia because it makes a buck and hey, if you can make a buck safely then do so.


Agreed. However, HAD we kept our isolationist policy, and not gotten involved in the war, Russia would have probably fell.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
OK, I don't have time to go point by point, but lets just say tha once again Sminky, we are probably going to have to agree to dissagree.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- If you agree with the point about shared interests then you surely 'get' that you desparately needed to get into it all too - although very late as usual.


Desperatly? Hardly. We got into it for a few reasons, however NONE of them were out of desperation.

And please, late? We were never attacked, must I remind you?

We were an isolationist country - the very thing everyone is screaming for us to do now. We did what we could politically, and bent over backwards to get ourselves in the war to save all you sorry Europeans from yourselves. Hell, in a period of what - 20 years - you guys managed to account for close to 100 million deaths.

And besides, if you want to talk about showing up late, maybe the UK and France were a little bit LATE taking Hitler on. Perhaps their APPEASMENT policy was the very reason we had to come over to your damn continent a second time.


Pity it took a direct attack on the USA in WW2 for 'you' to see the danger sufficiently to act, hmm?


Like I said, pity it is that your sissy country - along with the rest of Europe - couldn't stand up to Hitler before he rolled over you all like a bulldozer. Why should we have to come save you? Hmmmmmmmm?



- Great, then what is this nonsense all about, hmmm?


It is about the EU, which is comprised of nations like France, Germany, the UK etc who were all helped time and time again by us, who are supposed to be our allies, and they are selling us out to line their pockets.



.....which means allies who will not simply follow every whim you have nor (like any real friend) simply agree with anything 'you' say; pity that in todays US so many clearly fail to appreciate the value of a true, frank and honest friend.


So if the US sold weapons prior to the Balkans that would be ok with you? I mean after all, we would have just dissagreed with you.



.....or does the label 'civillian' on the radar make that high-tech ok?)


Yes it does actually. It is aproved by our government, it is non military, it can't be used to hurt us.


- Er but the logic of the shared interest is that it might well have our lives initially but ultimately it was your lives too.


No - it wasn't. We would have had the bomb, we could have let you Euros deal with each other while we went untouched by war.



- To begin with that might have been true. The belief that this would not have been the case ultimately is why 'we' all assisted each other, right?


No, and that is the point. We assisted you because you are our ally, along with the rest of western Europe. We all hold the same basic values, and you all - like it or not - needed our help if you weren't going to be run over.

Our lives WERE NOT at stake. YOURS were.



.....and the economy and living standards of a truely isolated America would hardly have been what came to be, right?


I disagree. We would have been fine.


- Hmmm, the full and actual causes of WW1 & WW2 are not entirely free from the presence and influence of Americans (politicians or business people).


Bottom line Sminky, we weren't involved at all untill we were attacked. In WWI we got involved because of 2 things: the Lisitania (spl?) and the Zimmerman telegraph (given to us by the UK of course).

In WWII Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Wow - so we would only get stiffed for 80-90% if you lost


Just admit it - IT WAS A HUGE RISK!

But we wouldnt have lost.



Not the US - we were their nuclear equal. You (Europe collectively) gave up hundreds of nukes to one.

You had a small number, in this new timeline germany would be in a position to assit japan, also would the US have the strike capability to hit the germans if they did take us?



I am sorry, this doesn't make sense. If it doesn't HELP them, they won't BUY it. If you sell them something that helps them, you are still helping them. It's not like they are just oging to take your stuff and install it in their stuff. They are going to take the TECHNOLOGY behind it.

Developing things like that takes TIME and MONEY. You are allowing them to LEAP this time (and thus making our lead smaller) by selling them stuff. Not to mention it would cost more to develope from scratch then to buy.

It's like a great text book. It takes years to write, but it only takes a day or two to read. The author still has a better grasp on the subject then the reader, but it has gone from a 100-1 lead to a 100-90 lead.

Yes but we control the leaps, does russia have the tech we have?
No they have their own tech, the tech we have china needs, we can control what and how they learn.



So selling a potential enemy of ours weapons more advanced then they have themselves is your way of looking after us?


Yeah, if the weapons are controlled by us.....you remember the thread about JSF codes?
How hard would you say it would be to hide a command inside the codes of the software?
Not hard, one command sent and the PLA software crashes.



Thats the point, you ARE NOT controling their growth - you are hastening it! I can not overstate that! Would you then sell China older nuclear missle designs that are not modern by your standards, but are more advanced then theirs? How about stealth technology? If we were to switch positions, should the US sell them the F-117? They have limited stealth tech, yours and ours is better. The Nighthawk is in the middle. How about some sub quiting techinques? Would you sell them those?

We WOULD be in control.
It may be more modern but it might just even be a forign model of the same type, just hyped up.
Hell this ability to cause untold chaos inside the PL military forces is immense......


This is insanity.

No the insanity is that they trust us...



Yes, in regards to selling weapons to our military rival, WHERE IS YOUR LOYALTY?

We have loyalty we are giveing you a big chance and getting on both sides.
America has sold weapons and tech to our enemies before but we have ignored that, think of the ability of haveing unrestricted acess in PLA bases thanks to you being a "consultant"..



Not true - I give credit ALWAYS when it is do. I defy you to find a single time I have ever denied the contribution that the UK has made in any of these shared conflicts.

You ask us about our loyalty , that very question brings into question our contribution has made in shared conflicts.



Yes, but it seems now YOUR POCKETS will betray that loyalty.

Oh come on, do you think us that unreliable?
Untrustworthy?



That is the thing - you ARE literally selling us out! You are lining your pockets by selling weapons to our enemies! I also find it extremely ironic that should China attack Taiwan, and thus, attack the US naval ships that will undoubtedly be placed there, YOU will also being killed with your own weapons.

Think of the ability we have in influeceing what they buy and from who, think of the ability the intel agencies would have!



It is a victory because our goal was accomplished. We needed a politically viable way to stray from our stated isolationist doctrine for the good of us all.

We lost few important naval assets - all of our subs and carriers were out to sea.

Jeez thats a bit of a cold way to put it.


It is much like how during WWII, the allies found out (through the enigma codes) that the Germans were going to hit some allied convoy (i think).The powers that be decided that the sacrifice of those men was needed in order to keep the fact that we had their codes a secret.

It was a town, and it is not the same.





Even so, Hitler controls from Russia to the edge of Western Europe. He has hundreds of millions of men to draw on, and the most resources. He regroups in a few months and takes you.

With what ships?
Its the taiwan china problem all over again.



Agreed. However, HAD we kept our isolationist policy, and not gotten involved in the war, Russia would have probably fell.
[edit on 14-4-2005 by American Mad Man]

Yeah that is true, although I do believe america seen the possible percussions of NOT takeing part.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
OK, I don't have time to go point by point, but lets just say tha once again Sminky, we are probably going to have to agree to dissagree.


- Yeah probably so let's just pick up a couple of real howlers in this little post huh?


Desperatly? Hardly. We got into it for a few reasons, however NONE of them were out of desperation.

And please, late? We were never attacked, must I remind you?


- Semantics.


We were an isolationist country - the very thing everyone is screaming for us to do now.


- Does it always have to be 'all or nothing' with you guys?
I think you'll find most simply would like a USA that was less unilateralist as opposed to isolationist or the current unilateral interventionist.


We did what we could politically, and bent over backwards to get ourselves in the war to save all you sorry Europeans from yourselves. Hell, in a period of what - 20 years - you guys managed to account for close to 100 million deaths.


- I won't deny there were examples of genuine help as well as many American individuals who helped for totally genuine altruistic reasons......and Europeans have always given the deepest most heartfelt and genuine thanks to those organisations and individuals and their entirely selfless acts of generosity.

(an entirely different situation to those who imagine 'help' generates 'entitlements' in their petty political schemes.....but who, of course, only ever consider their help, any help we have ever given is to always be ignored in this, right?)

But we can't forget that much of the 'help' was nothing of the sort either; a lot was pure trade at top dollar.

.......just as many American firms legally traded with Hitler's Germany right up until the Germans declared war on Germany.


And besides, if you want to talk about showing up late, maybe the UK and France were a little bit LATE taking Hitler on. Perhaps their APPEASMENT policy was the very reason we had to come over to your damn continent a second time.


- Well maybe if Wilson hadn't allowed his 'principles' to become means of vengence we wouldn't have had a Germany that birthed a Hitler at all, hmmm?

Anyone can play this game.

The fact remains most thought Hitler was only doing what was right and fair for so long, until about 1936, from then on the more enlightened knew appeasement was short-hand for buying time.
Which it was. Not enough for France and barely sufficient for the UK.


Like I said, pity it is that your sissy country - along with the rest of Europe - couldn't stand up to Hitler before he rolled over you all like a bulldozer.


- Hitler didn't "roll over" us in the UK at all actually.


Why should we have to come save you? Hmmmmmmmm?


- Still unable to admit (or is it grasp) the idea of shared interests, hmmmm?


It is about the EU, which is comprised of nations like France, Germany, the UK etc who were all helped time and time again by us, who are supposed to be our allies, and they are selling us out to line their pockets.


- .....and we do this "time and time again" how?

By currently selling less than half the military kit you currently sell China and discussing lifting the EU arms embargo?

This is a crock. Pure US hypocrisy.


So if the US sold weapons prior to the Balkans that would be ok with you? I mean after all, we would have just dissagreed with you.


- Like I said I would not be at all surprised if you did. I certainly expect your private arms dealers did.


Yes it does actually. It is aproved by our government, it is non military, it can't be used to hurt us.


- So you can see no way in which the most modern scanned array civillian radar might, if copied and modified, improve the current generation of Chinese radar tech?!

.....or any of the other latest tech you are selling them!?

Get over yourself and admit the obvious mate.


We would have had the bomb


- No you wouldn't.
Without Europeans the USA would not have had the bomb actually (along with a few other things, hmmm? Radar, jets, sonar etc etc).


we could have let you Euros deal with each other while we went untouched by war.


- Dream on.
If the USA has attempted to sidestep the war rest assured it would have impacted the USA enormously eventually.....

....and certainly compared to what actually happened US tech as well as living standards would have been far behind.


We assisted you because you are our ally, along with the rest of western Europe.


- Not to mention the global dominance 'game' you guys were playing with the USSR, right?
Come off it it was far from just being about keeping western Europe 'free', it was about power, markets and wealth.


We all hold the same basic values, and you all - like it or not - needed our help if you weren't going to be run over.

Our lives WERE NOT at stake. YOURS were.


- You might believe that I do not.
To tell you the truth AMM I do not buy that 'the Russians were about to attack' idea.
Not until everybody got really jumpy in the late 1970's and early 1980's - a situation we brought on just as much as they.


I disagree. We would have been fine.


- Well that seems to be because you either do not know so much about the major economic agreements and their value to the USA or won't admit them.
For anyone with the slightest clue the facts are undeniable. The USA benefitted enormously.

Go investigate the early GATT and Bretton Woods for a start.


In WWII Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us.


- We could debate US companies cashing in on playing both ends against the middle until it became too much for even the US to stay out of it (and I am happy to admitt much of this applies to WW2 and not WW1) but it was US Pres Wilson allowing his (originally very very worthy and fine) 'principles' to become perverted into a vehicle for (mostly) French revenge against Germany that in large part gave rise to WW2.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
You have voted sminkeypinkey for the Way Above Top Secret award.

Dr Sminkey has administered a dose of reality without being insulting, arrogant or hateful....once again.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Go Sminkey, go Sminkey, go Sminkey, go, go.

I have voted for Sminkey for Way Above for this month.

Keep up the good work SP.

Cheers

BHR


D

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus

Originally posted by omega1
If there is a war with China, i will volunteer. And finish the job my forefathers started. I will do my part in the takedown of Communism.



I have a 14 year old son who says the same thing. Last week Matthew had a few friends for a sleep-over. I overheard them late at night talking about killing communist Chinese soldiers, blowing away Islamic terrorists and cutting the balls off of OBL and his kind......and I almost got a tear in my eye.

Not from sorrow, but from joy!! There are still American Boys with a pair between their legs, who are not afraid of jacking up our enemies. I than went to sleep and slept well........knowing that as long as theres Americans boys like this, our future is safe.

Maximu


I felt sick after reading that. Patriotism and love of one's country is one thing, but being 14 and talking of "killing communist Chinese soldiers" is another. How about telling your son to talk to some Chinese friends on how they feel about their home country? Open up their eyes a bit. I think you'd be pretty sick if I told you that tears came to my eyes when I heard my son saying that they'd like to kill American soldiers. Reverse the situation, and you'd know how sick that sounded. Promoting patriotism and love of ones country does not have to mean the promotion of hate and xenophobia.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
D,

Here, here.

The difference here is between patriotism and nationalism.

I am Scottish and proud to be so but not at the expense of anyone else's nationality.

I joke about Americans and the English but I would never make generalisms based on nationality.

I have met just as many rude and arrogant Scots as I have Americans or English folks with these characteristics.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- Does it always have to be 'all or nothing' with you guys?
I think you'll find most simply would like a USA that was less unilateralist as opposed to isolationist or the current unilateral interventionist. .


It's funny, you Europeans are all for the US getting involved when ever it helps you out. But God forgive the US does something you don't aprove of.

Frankly, I could not care less what "most" would like. "Most" would like the US only to get involved in something when they need our help. Well, I am sorry (for you) to say that the US does not work that way.





- Well maybe if Wilson hadn't allowed his 'principles' to become means of vengence we wouldn't have had a Germany that birthed a Hitler at all, hmmm?

Anyone can play this game.

The fact remains most thought Hitler was only doing what was right and fair for so long, until about 1936, from then on the more enlightened knew appeasement was short-hand for buying time.
Which it was. Not enough for France and barely sufficient for the UK. .



Sminky, I can't help but roll my eyes at your double standards. Bottom line is that Europe let Hitler build his Nazi war machine right in front of their faces. Appeasement has NEVER in the history of mankind done more good then harm, and thats what your well to do, but unfortunatly inept countries did.



- Hitler didn't "roll over" us in the UK at all actually..


Hmmm, I seem to remember him pushing you guys out of France and into the English chanell Sminky. Remember? You guys were trying to save France, but got your collective arses handed to you?





- Still unable to admit (or is it grasp) the idea of shared interests, hmmmm?.



No, I understand the idea, but why should we have helped you? Germany posed no threat to the US. The Nazis didn't have the Navy to take on the US, and we got the bomb before him. We also had a larger population and better undustrial capacity then Germany.



- .....and we do this "time and time again" how?

By currently selling less than half the military kit you currently sell China and discussing lifting the EU arms embargo?

This is a crock. Pure US hypocrisy..



No - it is not hypocrisy Sminky. Yet again you fail to understand that it is not that they sell arms to China, it is the TYPE of arms they are willing to sell. Selling them state of the art aircraft electronics which rival our own (that they can not hope to build on their own) is a lot different then selling them some rifles or what not. That is what is in question here Sminky - not the arms themselves, but twhat KIND of arms.




- Like I said I would not be at all surprised if you did. I certainly expect your private arms dealers did..



But we didn't Sminky - thats the point. We COULD have, but we DIDN'T. It's called loyalty.



- So you can see no way in which the most modern scanned array civillian radar might, if copied and modified, improve the current generation of Chinese radar tech?!

.....or any of the other latest tech you are selling them!?

Get over yourself and admit the obvious mate. .



No - there is a difference between civilian and military radar Sminky. Why don't YOU just get overyourself and admit the obvious?


- No you wouldn't.
Without Europeans the USA would not have had the bomb actually (along with a few other things, hmmm? Radar, jets, sonar etc etc)..



Yes, in fact we would have had the bomb without European countries. Individuals FLED Europe (because for the second time in 25 years they managed to start a world war between each other) to come to the states.




- Dream on.
If the USA has attempted to sidestep the war rest assured it would have impacted the USA enormously eventually.....

....and certainly compared to what actually happened US tech as well as living standards would have been far behind. .


I agree both that we would have been inpacted differently. And, yes our technology would be behind. HOwever, there would also be a few hundred thousand Americans that would have lived as well.





- Not to mention the global dominance 'game' you guys were playing with the USSR, right?
Come off it it was far from just being about keeping western Europe 'free', it was about power, markets and wealth..



No, in fact our confrontation with Russia was only realised in the closing moments of WWII. We got involved (in Europe) to save your arses plain and simple.



- You might believe that I do not.
To tell you the truth AMM I do not buy that 'the Russians were about to attack' idea.
Not until everybody got really jumpy in the late 1970's and early 1980's - a situation we brought on just as much as they. .


Why don't you see what Russia did under Stalin in Eastern Europe then come back. He was invading countries left right and center. Had the US not backed you guys, his ambition would have led him to you.



- Well that seems to be because you either do not know so much about the major economic agreements and their value to the USA or won't admit them.
For anyone with the slightest clue the facts are undeniable. The USA benefitted enormously.

Go investigate the early GATT and Bretton Woods for a start..


Economic agreements or not, getting involved in the European theater was to save your asses. Did it help us out as well? Absolutely. But economics was not the reason we got involved - it was a benefit, not the reason.





- We could debate US companies cashing in on playing both ends against the middle until it became too much for even the US to stay out of it (and I am happy to admitt much of this applies to WW2 and not WW1) but it was US Pres Wilson allowing his (originally very very worthy and fine) 'principles' to become perverted into a vehicle for (mostly) French revenge against Germany that in large part gave rise to WW2.


So now you blame WWII on the US


Get real Sminky - Europe was to blame for both world wars, not the US. Europe got themselves in deep # both time, having wars never before or since matched in blood shed and BOTH times the US came to your aid.

Without all you EUROPEANS there would not have BEEN either great war!



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
AMM,

“It's funny, you Europeans are all for the US getting involved when ever it helps you out. But God forgive the US does something you don't approve of.”

You could swap that around and it would be far closer to the truth.

“I can't help but roll my eyes at your double standards. Bottom line is that Europe let Hitler build his Nazi war machine right in front of their faces..”

If I remember correctly the US was on the planet Earth at this time too. However, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. In fact I think that the US helped Hitler build his “Nazi war machine”.

“Hmmm, I seem to remember him pushing you guys out of France and into the English channel Sminky. Remember? You guys were trying to save France, but got your collective arses handed to you.”

And your point is? The North Vietnamese hand you guys your arses and you had/have nuclear weapons. The Nazis may have won a lot of battles but they lost the war, same as you in Vietnam.

“No, I understand the idea, but why should we have helped you? Germany posed no threat to the US. The Nazis didn't have the Navy to take on the US, and we got the bomb before him. We also had a larger population and better industrial capacity then Germany.”

Similar to Iraq. They posed no threat to the US, did not have any WMD and had smaller population and industrial capacity.

“Yet again you fail to understand that it is not that they sell arms to China, it is the TYPE of arms they are willing to sell. Selling them state of the art aircraft electronics which rival our own (that they can not hope to build on their own) is a lot different then selling them some rifles or what not. That is what is in question here Sminky - not the arms themselves, but what KIND of arms.”

Yet again you fail to give reasons as to why these things should not be sold to China. Are they not entitled to the best weapons they can afford to pay for?

“Why don't you see what Russia did under Stalin in Eastern Europe then come back. He was invading countries left right and center. Had the US not backed you guys, his ambition would have led him to you.”

What countries did Stalin invade post-1945? Please provide source material as to Stalin’s ambitions in the West beyond simple rhetoric of his speeches to the Soviet people.

“Without all you EUROPEANS there would not have BEEN either great war”

Without all you Americans there would have been no US Civil War. This statement makes as much sense as yours does. Furthermore, I think you will find that many of the warfighting techniques perfected in the First World War were initially trialed in the US Civil War e.g. Trench Warfare. There were more Americans killed during this conflict than in all other wars the US has participated in before or since.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Sminky, I can't help but roll my eyes at your double standards. Bottom line is that Europe let Hitler build his Nazi war machine right in front of their faces.


- This is simply not true.
Hitler and his criminal gang actually began their program of rearmament in secret. Actually.

For instance they announced the existance of the Luftwaffe (in contravention of the Versailles treaty limitations on German militarism) in 1936.

(Hitler & Co. were helped, in part, by some American people, Bush's grandaddy Prescott was one, have you heard of this?
He got indicted for it IIRC.
Other Americans were quite happy to trade and profit from a nazi Germany until 1941 and by then well known for what they were really about.....and you want to bitch and whine about French and British 'appeasement'!?)



I seem to remember him pushing you guys out of France and into the English chanell Sminky. Remember? You guys were trying to save France, but got your collective arses handed to you?


- You shouldn't go a bundle on a tactical situation, the strategic is always the more important.
Even Hitler's crowd knew this which is why they still feared the Royal Navy's power and that of the commonwealth.


No, I understand the idea, but why should we have helped you? Germany posed no threat to the US. The Nazis didn't have the Navy to take on the US, and we got the bomb before him. We also had a larger population and better undustrial capacity then Germany.


- You are simply twisting and turning to suit yourself.
If Hitler had won completely in Europe he would have had the elements of the French navy that his incomplete tactical victory denied him and what ever remained of the then defeated Roayl Navy.

Like I said it would all have come and bitten you mightily eventually and in your low tech state you might have been defeated or forced into an accomodation.
In which case it might well have been a nazi European state that took a century to fall to pieces and not the communist one further to the east.

....and your bomb project would have lacked the help from so many in Euroe and the UK.

(Don't forget - er, I'm assuming you knew? - even people like Neils Bohr was able to communicate vital atomic information from occupied Denmark, that would have been impossible if the UK had fallen).


No - it is not hypocrisy Sminky.


- It is. .....and of the most blatent and obvious kind too.


Yet again you fail to understand that it is not that they sell arms to China, it is the TYPE of arms they are willing to sell.


- OK, come on then.....like what? Please detail this awesome improvement 'we' have sold the Chinese?


Selling them state of the art aircraft electronics which rival our own (that they can not hope to build on their own) is a lot different then selling them some rifles or what not. That is what is in question here Sminky - not the arms themselves, but twhat KIND of arms.


- We've sold nothing of the kind.
In fact the increase in their capabilities will all come form the state of the art stuff the USA has and is selling them.
Stick a "civillian" label on it and it's all just fine and dandy, right?

Remember you outsell us 2-1+ right now.


But we didn't Sminky - thats the point. We COULD have, but we DIDN'T. It's called loyalty.


- Naaaaa, frankly it's called 'I don't know'.
But like I said I fully expect it to be the case that at the very least private US arms dealers were and have been active there.


No - there is a difference between civilian and military radar Sminky.


- In parts that is true but certain principles are identical, for example if China has so far been incapable of making her own reliable phased array and synthetic aperture radars then this latest tech from Boeing will certainly give them the help they need.

.....then there is the computer tech you prefer to overlook.
Remember you guys cried the house down over selling Playstation2's to China....how the hell do you just ignore a major chunk of IBn and not see the hypocrisy?

(not to mention just how sad and laughable this is to the rest of the world?)


Why don't YOU just get overyourself and admit the obvious?


- Think up your own lines AMM!


Yes, in fact we would have had the bomb without European countries. Individuals FLED Europe (because for the second time in 25 years they managed to start a world war between each other) to come to the states.


- If the UK had fallen many of those that got out and came to the USA after WW2 started (in addition to those left behind or that stayed with their families) who actually used the UK as their conduit would never have come or been able to send their information.

The USA wouldn't have had the bomb when she did and even whether she would ever have had it before that maniac Hitler is also very debateable.


I agree both that we would have been inpacted differently. And, yes our technology would be behind. HOwever, there would also be a few hundred thousand Americans that would have lived as well.


- The US would have been much poorer (comparitively speaking), very backward technologically compared to Europe and very vulnerable to an more advanced Europe.

That's why your then political leaders asked the country to make the sacrifice in the first place, they fully understood this.


No, in fact our confrontation with Russia was only realised in the closing moments of WWII. We got involved (in Europe) to save your arses plain and simple.


- Well we'll have to agree to disagree there then.
I don't believe that for one moment.
IMO it was all about vast quantities of power, money and domination of the world's markets.
(Are you blind? You can still see it at work today with the world's oil priced in $)


Why don't you see what Russia did under Stalin in Eastern Europe then come back. He was invading countries left right and center.


- This is simply not true.
Stalin was not "invading" anyone, he was occupying his 'sphere of influence' (a defeated bunch of Hitlers allies, collaborators and anti-Russian troublemakers as far as they were concerned in the main) as agreed with the other allied leaders during WW2.

He was establishing a 'buffer zone' so that (in Russian eyes) they would never again have to face invasion and the ruinous consequences all that brought......for the umteenth time from the west.


Had the US not backed you guys, his ambition would have led him to you.


- You have absolutely no grounds for making that claim. It is pure personal opinion.
The fact is like all paranoid situations where there could have been peace and better understanding we on each side fed off of each other and fostered a situation of escalating tensions with their self- serving and self-reinforcing move and countermove.


Economic agreements or not, getting involved in the European theater was to save your asses. Did it help us out as well? Absolutely. But economics was not the reason we got involved - it was a benefit, not the reason.


- Yeah and if you believe that you'll believe anything.



So now you blame WWII on the US


- No actually I didn't.
But there is an American involvement and responsibility in there as to it coming to be.


[edit on 18-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by D

I felt sick after reading that. Patriotism and love of one's country is one thing, but being 14 and talking of "killing communist Chinese soldiers" is another. How about telling your son to talk to some Chinese friends on how they feel about their home country? Open up their eyes a bit. I think you'd be pretty sick if I told you that tears came to my eyes when I heard my son saying that they'd like to kill American soldiers. Reverse the situation, and you'd know how sick that sounded. Promoting patriotism and love of ones country does not have to mean the promotion of hate and xenophobia.


You used the words "sick" so many times in your sad wimpy paragraph....it started making me sick!

50-60 years ago, this was normal talk for young American men....Killing Japs, Krauts, Injuns and Commies etc etc., but sadly our modern society has been poisoned by the Liberals who dope up any young man on Ritalin who dares shows any sign of patriotism and God forbid a young American man challange radical Islam....he would be sent to "anger-management" therapy and brain-washing sessions.

I don't have proof, but roughly HALF our young American boys have never even fired a BB gun!!! Their manhood and Patriotism is being watered down and its gonna get worse. Whats gonna happen in the next 50 years?? I beleave in future, only 25% of Americas men will think like me.....the other 75% will be ether stabbing America in the back or too weak to even hold a BB gun.

I don't expect you to understand me.....you never could.

Maximu§



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
What happened in the past is not what should define how we live now.

If it does then france and britain wouldnt have signed the entente ,have joined NATO, britain wouldnt be such good friends with america and probably would be friends with the nazi's...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join