American Dominance on the World Stage

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
imAMERICAN...


worldwarI.com i believe...


is an American site.............

If you actually study the War from more than 1 point of view, you will see many factors brought germany to her knees. Like the British blockade which was starving the German people, or the simple fact that France and Britain had more men, so in a war of attrition, they would eventally win. or the fact that germany was bankrupt..........

As for WW2 and the Normandy landings..... on the actual D-Day, there where more British troops taking part than American. Also, we sustained far less casualties than you did, for the simple fact we managed to successfully bomb the beachheads, not blow up the fields behind them. And you are forgetting the vital role the Royal Navy (the largest and most advanced Navy at the time) played in the landings, without which, german e-boats/u-boats would have chewed your landing craft up like the machine gunners did you troops.

I personally would not take anything that has been written in America as the truth without seeing it backed up by an independant source....this is because you guys ban books you don't like (see another ATS thread), or don't teach things you don't like (like evolution) in your schools.

If you chaps can get your enormous heads out of your Macdonald filled arses for longer than the time it takes to eat another Big Mac, then maybe you will see things for what they truely are, and not just there to serve the good ol` US of A.




posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GD


Thats the problem with people like you. You can't call a victory a victory.

Let's see, a diplomatic solution is invalid, as is a military solution. What's left? Roll over and die? I'm not going to do that and I will not teach my children to accept it either. Sometimes you have to step up and do what's right, even when it's difficult. You obviously can't grasp this. Go ahead. Give up.

WHO THE HELL SAID I WAS GIVEING UP?
i know victory.
no im saying its stupid to believe that he has given up all his black projects.
what are you on about rolling over and dyeing. we have a small neavy i mean france is bigger than us and yet WE'RE out there heliping the UN as well as them we could have packed it in and said we dont want to but we are still doing it so go take your BS somewhere else.


GD

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by GD


Thats the problem with people like you. You can't call a victory a victory.

Let's see, a diplomatic solution is invalid, as is a military solution. What's left? Roll over and die? I'm not going to do that and I will not teach my children to accept it either. Sometimes you have to step up and do what's right, even when it's difficult. You obviously can't grasp this. Go ahead. Give up.

WHO THE HELL SAID I WAS GIVEING UP?
i know victory.
no im saying its stupid to believe that he has given up all his black projects.
what are you on about rolling over and dyeing. we have a small neavy i mean france is bigger than us and yet WE'RE out there heliping the UN as well as them we could have packed it in and said we dont want to but we are still doing it so go take your BS somewhere else.


Not your nation- people like you. Your argument is that American Diplomacy did not work in Libya, and it is wrong to use military power. Police Department interdiction and surveillance is a proven loser. It hasn't stopped any terrorism. So what is left?

Your nation is a valued partner in this war. I hope people like you don't force it to change direction.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GD


Not your nation- people like you. Your argument is that American Diplomacy did not work in Libya, and it is wrong to use military power. Police Department interdiction and surveillance is a proven loser. It hasn't stopped any terrorism. So what is left?

Your nation is a valued partner in this war. I hope people like you don't force it to change direction.

also I WAS MEANING ME
firstly i never said it didnt work i just said its not going to be a total victory.
i never said it was wrong to use military power just its better to have restraint. what? the police cant fight international terrorists if they dont have info from the outward intel swervices thats how it works. its a big network one unit cant fight it all on its own.
what people like me who are going to be ini the front lines in your glorios war of terror. u think forceing it not to go into wars with arab countries who havent attaked us? oh and also i think afgahnistan was justified so dont even try that avenue and also the 45 minute claim. why would they go and attack us? they are not that stupid.
its people like YOU who send counteis into war's that arnt even justified! dont tell me that i am leading my country astray i want to look after MY country and frankly only after you can do that is when you are able to dictate to folk how they should run theirs.

[edit on 1-9-2004 by devilwasp]


GD

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by GD


Not your nation- people like you. Your argument is that American Diplomacy did not work in Libya, and it is wrong to use military power. Police Department interdiction and surveillance is a proven loser. It hasn't stopped any terrorism. So what is left?

Your nation is a valued partner in this war. I hope people like you don't force it to change direction.

45 minute claim
[edit on 1-9-2004 by devilwasp]


Not sure what you mean here. Please elaborate before I reply



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GD


Not sure what you mean here. Please elaborate before I reply

the 45 min claim? the thing that actually cause us to go to war? the thing was that intel said that irq had WMD's that could hurt us in 45 mins, now if you dont know this then you dont know WHY we went to war.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by GD


Not sure what you mean here. Please elaborate before I reply

the 45 min claim? the thing that actually cause us to go to war? the thing was that intel said that irq had WMD's that could hurt us in 45 mins, now if you dont know this then you dont know WHY we went to war.


You forget Devilwasp, the Butler and Hutton reports were made public. THe US Congressional report was kept secret. The US government doesnt WANT their people to know how badly they screwed up, they just released small portions of the congressional report to indicate that they admit what everyone already knew.

Oh, and Libya was the same kind of 'diplomacy' that a school yard bully uses. 'Cough up or you are next'. It may have worked, this time, but it isnt pretty. Its called Gunboat Diplomacy, and has a 50% chance of screwing up badly.

Oh, and did anyone else read the reports about Saudi Arabia persuing nuclear weapon capabilities? (source) while Bush and Blair are busy threatening pretty much every other country in the region, Saudi Arabia is allowed to persue the options. And beleive me, they have EXACTLY the same type of government that the Bush/Blair duo are trying to stop from getting the capability in other places.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
No nation can compete with the USA, this is a FATt, and if you think otherwise, well, you are lving in a land of Oz.

[edit on 1-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
No nation can compete with the USA, this is a FATt, and if you think otherwise, well, you are lving in a land of Oz.

[edit on 1-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

how not?
exsplain



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   


Your argument is that American Diplomacy did not work in Libya


I think you'll find it was British diplomacy that did the job in Libya. We made inroads into them and got them to agree to compo for lockerbie and to own up to WMD (even though it wasn't even a fully fledged program). You Americans came along for the ride, and actually made things more difficult by being stubborn about lifting sanctions.

Also, the 45 min claim for Iraqs WMD was a load of Horse crap, sprinkled with a generous portion of Dog sh*t. using that as an example of intel, is making yourslef as bad as King Bush and lap dog Blair



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



Also, the 45 min claim for Iraqs WMD was a load of Horse crap, sprinkled with a generous portion of Dog sh*t. using that as an example of intel, is making yourslef as bad as King Bush and lap dog Blair

yeah it is crap.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
imAMERICAN...


worldwarI.com i believe...


is an American site.............

If you actually study the War from more than 1 point of view, you will see many factors brought germany to her knees. Like the British blockade which was starving the German people, or the simple fact that France and Britain had more men, so in a war of attrition, they would eventally win. or the fact that germany was bankrupt..........

As for WW2 and the Normandy landings..... on the actual D-Day, there where more British troops taking part than American. Also, we sustained far less casualties than you did, for the simple fact we managed to successfully bomb the beachheads, not blow up the fields behind them. And you are forgetting the vital role the Royal Navy (the largest and most advanced Navy at the time) played in the landings, without which, german e-boats/u-boats would have chewed your landing craft up like the machine gunners did you troops.

I personally would not take anything that has been written in America as the truth without seeing it backed up by an independant source....this is because you guys ban books you don't like (see another ATS thread), or don't teach things you don't like (like evolution) in your schools.

If you chaps can get your enormous heads out of your Macdonald filled arses for longer than the time it takes to eat another Big Mac, then maybe you will see things for what they truely are, and not just there to serve the good ol` US of A.



*sigh* who said i have a big macdonald filled "arse" huh? i Fing HATE macdonalds, it is garbage and for u to use personal insults that have no relevance what so ever is appaling but as to ur post, heres from a British site MATE,

By August 1914, Britain had 247,432 regular troops. About 120,000 of these were in the British Expeditionary Army and the rest were stationed abroad.By January 1916 over 2.6 million men had volunteered for the British Army .The British Army had 1.6 million men wounded during the First World War. Approximately 662,000 were killed and another 140,000 were recorded as missing, presumed dead. hmm so most of the "british army" was killed eh? the french army however, The structure and balance of the French Army changed during the war. By 1918 about 40% of all French troops on the Western Front were artillerymen. Increasing use of machine-guns, armoured cars and tanks also reduced the numbers in the infantry. The growing importance of the French Army Air Service also had an impact and whereas there were 1,5 million in the French infantry in June 1915, this dropped to 850,000 in 1918.

Germany: By August 1916, about 2.85 soldiers were serving on the Western Front with another 1.7 million on the Eastern Front.

When the First World War came to an end in November 1918, the German Army had suffered an estimated 5 million casualties, including 1.75 dead. (which means that when the germans put their entire weight onto france, it was almost 5 million troops) (BUT WAIT!, it says that france had only 1.5 million troops! and not too many brits left! so then the usa had : "By July 1918 there were over a million US soldiers in France." which helped fill the ranks buddy. and thats from your British site : www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
uhh buddy you relise there was no advance in 1918. hell all you did was join the line 4 years late and help defend a line WHOOPTY DO! any one can do that.
also yes most of the british army was almost destroyed because it was small but extremely well trained. when the german faught them they thought we had machine guns all we had were rifles. we were soo good. hell they used thier pinkies to reload.
also we only had a 100,000 man army! those were the volunteers not the BEF which was the regular army.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
""As for WW2 and the Normandy landings..... on the actual D-Day, there where more British troops taking part than American. Also, we sustained far less casualties than you did, for the simple fact we managed to successfully bomb the beachheads, not blow up the fields behind them. And you are forgetting the vital role the Royal Navy (the largest and most advanced Navy at the time) played in the landings, without which, german e-boats/u-boats would have chewed your landing craft up like the machine gunners did you troops. "" AHEM!!!!!!!!!!!

really?

The Allies also sent in three airborne divisions, two American and one British, to prepare for the main assault by taking certain strategic points and by disrupting German communications. Of the 23,000 airborne troops, 15,500 were Americans and of these, 6,000 were killed or seriously wounded.

Over the next couple of days 156,215 troops were landed from sea and air in Normandy, at a cost of some 10,300 casualties. AND On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 43,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

WOW! would u LOOK AT THAT!

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).

BIG WHOOP WE LOST MORE MEN, WE HAD MORE TROOPS THEIR, WHAT DO U EXPECT!



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
www.ddaymuseum.co.uk... all from BRITISH SITES, so dont gimme any american bs buddy



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
There's a lot of reasons why the US holds the top step on the socioeconomic ladder, but fact is nothing lasts forever. Rome had its day, as did the Brits, the French, the Egyptians and the Turks. As did the dinosaurs, gotta change with the times or you're yesterdays news, the current state of affairs is such that the US is not likely going to be toppled unless the energy runs out, their overdependance on Arab oil and poor energy planning past "next week" means the US economy is directly tied to foreign policy decisions, how to secure more resources, rather than how to optimize what they've got. People in the US and indeed up here in Canada have no idea how expensive energy is, their sheer volume has protected them for so long. Any American who visits the UK for instance would turn tail and run at their gas costs. There needs to be much more emphasis on low fuel consumption cars, i'm personally gonna laugh my butt off when people get stuck with their Hummers and Sport Bloatily Vehicles and end up paying $100 just to fill them up.

All the technological capabilities in the world aren't much good if you canot transport them or manufacture them. Energy is the one key. To paraphrase GW, its a case of the haves, and the have mores. With the military and economic clout the US enjoys it can pretty well bully those they can't out negotiate. Considering the sordid history of US interference around the world, my favorite story being the United Fruit sponsored CIA takeover of a central American sovereign republic so they could increase their banana production cheaply, i wouldn't call those latinos down there to be the banana republics, that's the USA's cachet in that case.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
And with all that military might in place, if economic pressures look like threatening Americas position as THE world superpower then America may just get hostile to protect its position, maybe it already has? 'Iraqi freedom' or 'America's seat at the head of the table'?



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   
your right, we need to change our energy from oil to hydrogen, no more dependence on mideast and unlimited power from here



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
no doubt the US depends on mid east oil, but thats just because its cheap. People tend to forget one of the largest oil reserves in the world is in Alaska, and its untapped.

I was also just reading an article about how they can turn tar from the HUGE tar pits in canada into crude oil. Basically they are working on the technology to make it cheap enough to be feasible.

If the US could get completely away from using mid east oil it would be a great day! I think it might help alleviate a lot of problems going on today. I also think the mid east oil guys wouldn't know what to do, and they'd probably be broke in no time.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
you wanna know why u lost so many men that day?
its because your "great military planners sent you tanks in 10 miles out to sea instead of 5.
also you didnt want our anti mine tanks. which slowed u down quite a bit.
also so what you had more men ? your 6 times as big as us.
we were better trained and lasted longer.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join