Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

USA vs. the World

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rogue1
Let's face it, what you're paying off is only a tiny fraction of what was given to you.

Well tell us what you want us to do then?


Britain did far more than anyone else to win the war... for it's size. The US made it sell all of it's overseas assets and after the war it was worse off than even the defeated nations like Japan and Germany because of this. America did very well from the war compared to everyone else and took Britain's place as a world superpower so i wouldn't be complaining if i were you. My grandfather was one of the "rats of Tobruk" who stopped Rommels advance in Egypt and gave Hitler his first taste of defeat, he also fought in the pacific mainly in New Guinea. It bothers me that many Americans think that other nations didn't fight hard to win the war, for the size of the populations of the UK and Australia we fought very hard indeed and i don't see why you would be dissapointed with our efforts or results. Although my Grandfather didn't fight in the battle of the coral sea our forces were also the first to stop the Japanese advance which had rolled over everyone else in their path until then. We were very much involved in both of the operations that stopped our enemies right in their tracks.

Tobruk

www.diggerhistory.info...

Battle of the Coral Sea

www.diggerhistory.info...

They confronted soldiers without respect for authority or for domineering powers. These soldiers were volunteers without dreams of glory but who instead believed that some things were worth fighting for. They were empathetic soldiers who were infuriated if their leaders brushed aside their suffering or dared express an attitude that any man was expendable or inferior. These soldiers were from Australia and at Tobruk, they gave Hitler his first taste of defeat.

Countries that are born of revolutions, great heroics or have great artistic traditions are justified in championing their 'excellence'. However Australians are unable to engage in such self-glorification as their culture is built upon the scum of British society. Consequently, instead of glorifying themselves as heroes or champions, Australians self depreciate by affectionately referring to themselves as "dickheads", "bastards", "mongrels" and "drongos". Hence when the Germans called them 'rats', the Australians were not offended. To the contrary, they embraced the description; dubbing themselves the "Rats of Tobruk." It was seen as a sign that the underdogs were indeed making life difficult for the domineering power.

www.convictcreations.com...

It must have been a shock for the German who thought of themselves as being better than everyone else to encounter their polar oposites. Of course such things are not true of present day Australians since we do have a culture to be proud of now days, thankfully most of it hasn't been in war.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Trent]




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trent

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rogue1
Let's face it, what you're paying off is only a tiny fraction of what was given to you.

Well tell us what you want us to do then?


Britain did far more than anyone else to win the war... for it's size. The US made it sell all of it's overseas assets and after the war it was worse off than even the defeated nations like Japan and Germany because of this. America did very well from the war compared to everyone else and took Britain's place as a world superpower so i wouldn't be complaining if i were you. My grandfather was one of the "rats of Tobruk" who stopped Rommels advance in Egypt and gave Hitler his first taste of defeat, he also fought in the pacific mainly in New Guinea. It bothers me that many Americans think that other nations didn't fight hard to win the war, for the size of the populations of the UK and Australia we fought very hard indeed and i don't see why you would be dissapointed with our efforts or results. Although my Grandfather didn't fight in the battle of the coral sea our forces were also the first to stop the Japanese advance which had rolled over everyone else in their path until then. We were very much involved in both of the operations that stopped our enemies right in their tracks.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Trent]



Hmmm, I wasn't talking about the Commonwealth just Britain - they used the resources of the Commonwealth to fight there war. When Menzies requested the Aussie 9th division be returned to Australia for our defense, Churchill refused. When Menzies stood his ground Churchill conceded but on the way back he had them diverted to Singapore in a futile attempt to defennd the city. You know what happened to the soldiers there I assume.

Not only does Britain owe the US they owe the Aussies and every other Commeonwealth country who fought to defend them.

Britains empire drained the resources of the countries they controlled. The sooner Australia becomes a Republic the better, I know I'll vote for it againd



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
No i don't think they owe us any more than we owe them, we were both fighting as hard as we could to defeat an enemy that needed to be defeated. Plus we were better off after the war than they were relatively speaking, things could have been much worse. Diverting the troops to Singapore was a mistake by Churchill but we won the war and that's the main thing.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
"Not only does Britain owe the US they owe the Aussies and every other Commeonwealth country who fought to defend them."

Owe them for what? Defending them? Pushing a unified front against Germany?

I'm sure India, etc, would of been so happy to have Hitler take over. I'm sure they'd love to all of been killed off.




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
"Not only does Britain owe the US they owe the Aussies and every other Commeonwealth country who fought to defend them."

Owe them for what? Defending them? Pushing a unified front against Germany?

I'm sure India, etc, would of been so happy to have Hitler take over. I'm sure they'd love to all of been killed off.



Britain didn't defend us in the slightest as a matter of fact they drained our resources just when we needed them to fight the Japanese.
Same thing happened in WWI, you sucked in all the people from the Commonwealth to fight your wars.

As for India, how exactly was Hitler going to take them over - what a ridiculous statement.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Britain didn't defend us in the slightest as a matter of fact they drained our resources just when we needed them to fight the Japanese.

Mabye because they where too busy fighting in Malaya or atleast the argyle's where.
Since most of the army was fighting in germany and france,


Same thing happened in WWI, you sucked in all the people from the Commonwealth to fight your wars.

Technically you where under our rule so it was fine.


As for India, how exactly was Hitler going to take them over - what a ridiculous statement.

He was pushing in all directions mate , remember they had a little drive through north africa.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rogue1


Same thing happened in WWI, you sucked in all the people from the Commonwealth to fight your wars.

Technically you where under our rule so it was fine.


Not in the case of Australia, we were given independence in 1901. All of the soldiers that fought in WW1 were volunteers, there was no conscription.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trent
Not in the case of Australia, we were given independence in 1901. All of the soldiers that fought in WW1 were volunteers, there was no conscription.

Oh, well then that changes things, tha means the autstrailain gov must have wanted to send them.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Hitler:"Well, we've got rid of the British, Australian's...but we'll leave India. I mean, we think they're scum of the Earth...but we'll stand around and leave them be."

...

He hated Gypsies, some of the very first nomadic gypsy tribes are from India...they would of wanted to kill a lot of Indian's off and would of invaded.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

He was pushing in all directions mate , remember they had a little drive through north africa.


Gawd, that just shows a complete lack of understanding of Germnay's military might and goals in WW2, Germnay could never have invaded India - just as the Japanese never could. They didn't have near the soldiers required or the logistsics.
Go and do some reading, you obviously need to.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
He would of in the end. That's the important point. Every nation needed to fight together to stop Hitler.

Otherwise, it'd of never lasted as long as it did they'd of easily won.

Side note: www.bbc.co.uk... - read that

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Odium]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
He would of in the end. That's the important point. Every nation needed to fight together to stop Hitler.


Yeah right, just how was he going to do it ? This is just ignorance of the situation at the time. Hitler would neber have invaded India it just wsn't physically possible. So please enough of this Hitler invading India BS.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   
On 07-04-1776 A bunch of disorganized hillbillies shooting from rooftops changed your little world.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfkat157
France schmance what a waste of good soil!!!!!


Plz don't bad mouth the French , Just because they don't agree on some Issues.

As for your mood
Mood: tsunamied

I have lost a very dear friend in that tragedy, so I feel it is insensitive on your part.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Gawd, that just shows a complete lack of understanding of Germnay's military might and goals in WW2, Germnay could never have invaded India - just as the Japanese never could. They didn't have near the soldiers required or the logistsics.
Go and do some reading, you obviously need to.

No?
People thought that about them not leaveing europe but hey they done it, they had the gear and eventualy the men.
Might of taken time but they would have.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rogue1
Gawd, that just shows a complete lack of understanding of Germnay's military might and goals in WW2, Germnay could never have invaded India - just as the Japanese never could. They didn't have near the soldiers required or the logistsics.
Go and do some reading, you obviously need to.

No?
People thought that about them not leaveing europe but hey they done it, they had the gear and eventualy the men.
Might of taken time but they would have.



Like I said read some books before posting this drivel. You have absolutely no understanding of the strategic situation on WWII.
It's kinda embarrassing the lack of knowlege some people have when talking about WWII.

Next you'll be saying the Nazi's would hvae invaded America



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Didnt the American gov. say that if the war had lasted a few more months, germany would have won and eventualy invaded.?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Only thing in those settings that would have turned tides of war was that if German manufactured nuke first. They were utterly outnumbered by forces of Russia and west allied forces, there was no effective industry left same way as US or Russia was able to bring tools from untouched areas, war was in German soil, and why the hell people use word "Nazi" about em, that repserent like 5% or less of whole military not to mention country. Ill think Germans have paid long enough for war that is long gone and should be learnt from.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Getting back to the subject at hand.. USA vs. the World.. Guess what? According to statements made by now State Department diva Condoleeza Rice, the War on Terror is now passe. We are moving boldly into phase 2, the new and improved War on TYRANNY! How bout that? It's about controlling all oil chokepoints around the world. Funny how these nations that we are describing as possible targets for intervention - because of their eeeVil rulers, about 12 or so, just happen to be on Cheney's big OIL map.
What a cowinkydink!


Here's the problem. Our military is encircling Russia and China in our quest to control all oil transport routes and future fields of exploration. We are being friendly to those regimes willing to cede to our demands - irregardless of how tyrannical they are - highlighting the sheer hypocrisy of it all - and behaving in a very threatening manner towards the others.

BushCo. has done everything in its power to cause the ouster of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. This has pushed him straight into the waiting arms of China and Russia. Talk about brilliant. Chavez just signed a bilateral agreement with China to divert oil away from the USA to China and to sell its US refineries. It's crazy.

Extreme military and economic anti- US alliances are forming before our very eyes. This administration has done nothing to prevent that, but actually fostered it. The old international frameworks that have sustained us since the end of WW2 are fracturing. Instead of working to re-enforce them, this administration is taking a wrecking ball to them. Simply put, it's suicidal.

It's so very ironic, Bush likes to liken himself to former President Ronald Reagan. But if the Gipper could see what is going on now, with Bush's plans to build a new generation of nukes, blowing off the treaties and strutting around threatening various countries, he'd denounce Bush for the Charlatan he is. I guarantee it.



A Peek Behind Bush II’s ‘War on Tyranny’
by F. William Engdahl
www.globalresearch.ca 13 February 2005
The URL of this article is: globalresearch.ca...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part I:

Control all ’tyrannical’ world oil chokepoints

In recent public speeches, George W. Bush and others in the Administration, including Condi Rice, have begun to make a significant shift in the rhetoric of war. A new ‘War on Tyranny’ is being groomed to replace the outmoded War on Terror. Far from being a semantic nuance, the shift is highly revealing of the next phase of Washington’s global agenda.

In his 20 January inaugural speech, Bush declared:

"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Bush repeated the last formulation, ‘ending tyranny in our world’ in the State of the Union. (author’s emphasis). In 1917 it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy," and in 1941 it was a "war to end all wars."

The use of tyranny as justification for US military intervention marks a dramatic new step on the road to Washington’s quest for global domination. Washington, of course today, is shorthand for the policy domination by a private group of military and energy corporate giants, from Halliburton to McDonnell Douglas, from Bechtel to ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco, not unlike that foreseen in Eisenhower’s 1961 speech warning of excessive control of government by a military-industrial complex.
globalresearch.ca...



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Like I said read some books before posting this drivel. You have absolutely no understanding of the strategic situation on WWII.
It's kinda embarrassing the lack of knowlege some people have when talking about WWII.

Firstly , we're talking about the future if the commonwealth or america hadnt helped.
Would hitler had in a few years the man power to reach india?
Probably yes, i dont call it drivel, you seem to think that every post against you is drivel.


Next you'll be saying the Nazi's would hvae invaded America

No just bomb them and cut off suplies, then invade after a few years.
Or do you think the nazi's didnt have the tech or man power to do ethier?





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join