Bush addresses the world- Pending War

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I thihk we should start handing out itemized bills to Europe and other countries who request our helpp in their battles. The UN should also get itemized bills too.

Good idea, cost us Brits a fortune that little invasion did! (Bills for Bullets, gotta nice ring to it that has).

When do ya think the US will pay up?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Good idea, cost us Brits a fortune that little invasion did! (Bills for Bullets, gotta nice ring to it that has).

When do ya think the US will pay up?

I think we've paid our fair share to Europe by protecting your a$$ from the Soviet Union. Also - Iraq wasn't a matter of protecting you - like throwing down Meloshevic was or standing guard in Europe for decades to make sure that the Soviet Union didn't try going beyond East Germany. I think your 40,000 troops (which a parliament member said was spreading your troops thin. I actually thought you had a larger army - seems you were relying more on the US to protect you than I thought. ) are a small price to pay for our defense of your country for years.

So - if you want us to pay - then I suggest you guys pay for the cold war and the rebuilding of Europe after WWII. Not to mention you can pay us for our military action during World War II and World War I.

I can guarantee the few times we have asked for your help - will be a drop in the bucket - but when you get our bill - it'll most likely bankrupt your country. You may have to actually cut back on some of those social programs you've been able to enjoy by sitting back and relying on OUR military.

[markedel]

But...U.S military dominance is good for the U.S. It's good for Europe too (in fact it's pretty good for eveyone because U.S self-interest is probably the nicest we've ever seen), but if the U.S did not have a large military it would be less powerful.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by markedel
But...U.S military dominance is good for the U.S. It's good for Europe too (in fact it's pretty good for eveyone because U.S self-interest is probably the nicest we've ever seen), but if the U.S did not have a large military it would be less powerful.

Yes and in the world we live it it would be naive to think that we would actually go to an isolartionist policy. It would be nice - but it's not going to happen. I don't even support an isolationist policy. It's just frustrating when all anyone does it complain about our country. At those times - I just feel like we should just leave the world to it's own devices. If North Korea invades South Korea and then goes after Japan - should we really lift a finger? Both countries the last several years have had demonstrations telling our military to leave - that it's not wanted. Germans during the cold war - repeatedly told us to get out - maybe we should have left Europe to defend itself against the Soviet Union. The thing is - we couldn't risk it. If they turned communist - it would have hurt our economy. It would have threatened our country militarily eventually.

We can still be powerful even without being militarily powerful though. We are the most powerful country economically too. The dollar is the world's currency. The best way of preventing war is not through military might - but through free markets and trade. When countries' trade and well being are linked - they are not going to wage war on each other. Trade between Russia and the US will help keep us as allies - whereas before there was no trade.

Canada and the US enjoy the largest "undefended" border in the world. The US can go into Canada if we wanted to and take over the country - but that isn't going to happen (which is sort of ironic with the number of comments from people saying that the US is imperialist and wants to take over the world). We live in peace mostly through our trade. As I've said many times - I don't even need a passport to go to Canada nor even Mexico - unlike Europeans traveling through Europe. Europe is starting to change - but it has been slow.

Free trade between countries makes war VERY expensive and not worth it.

I should note too that NATO was called on only ONCE to directly defend America in the history of the alliance and that was after 9/11. The only reason why was because our planes were busy hunting down Osama Bin Ladin in Afganistan and for those few month - NATO planes flew over New Jersey and New York.

The United States was actually founded on the principal of not joining into alliances and only having a military for defense and to only build it up when attacked. That principal went out the window after we got dragged into World War II and realised that we had to take the upper hand or else Europe would be continuously in war. After World War II - we stopped destroying our war equipment and sinking it into the sea, like we did after World War I. This time we decided to step onto the world stage and take the lead.

[BeardofPants]

Oh, don't mind me. *sneaks off with JD's pants*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

-points at BoP-

Look at that! She stole JD's pants! Solid proof that she's anti-American! If that isn't, then I don't know what is!

And just for good measure:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
-points at BoP-

Look at that! She stole JD's pants! Solid proof that she's anti-American! If that isn't, then I don't know what is!

Well I actually thought there was no question to that.

[BeardofPants]

And just for that, I'm taking your underpants too.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
And just for that, I'm taking your underpants too.

I knew deep down inside you were infatuated with me.

[BeardofPants]

Hey whaddayaknow? They've got little American Flags all over 'em.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hey whaddayaknow? They've got little American Flags all over 'em.

They must not be mine then - that would be sacrilege to have the American Flag on your underwear. They might have been from another patriotic American though who doesn't see anything wrong with it though. You after anyone else at the moment - like GW or Dunedain?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Russia DEFENDED itself in Stalingrad - it was unable to push into Germany without the allies creating the eastern front. Just because they were able to defend themselves - doesn't mean that they could have pushed west without the allies creating a two front war with Germany. The allies needed to force germany to look more at the west in order for the Soviet Union to make advances. Churchill wanted to create a southern front - in order to make sure that the Soviet Union didn't have a chance to take over Eastern Europe. D-Day was two years in the planning - with Churchill dragging his feet and Roosevelt trying to get him to agree. Hitlers major error in the war was attacking the Soviet Union so soon. But Stalingrad was still only a DEFENSIVE position NOT an OFFENSIVE attack.

The war did continue after the battle of Stalingrad, with the Russians continually pushing the front westward in a counter-offensive. Check out the battles' stats here:

Eastern Front 1943

Meanwhile the Italian campain, mostly against Mussolini's forces at first, didn't begin until six months after Stalingrad.

Southern Front 1943

Meanwhile US forces were just getting into the fray in North Africa while Stalingrad was raging.

The US's main concern was the Pacific theater of operations in the early years of its involvement in the war for obvious reasons.

The effects of cutting off the Reich's oil and the bombing raids certainly helped the Russian cause in the middle of the war and the western front later on, but the heavy lifting on the eastern front was no small feat. Check the deployment of German mechanised units and other fun facts here: More OT stuff

Why do you think Sgt. Schultz was so afraid of the Russian Front?

Edit:*still has pants-sigh*

[Sween]

JD you do amuse me greatly ! But what the hell are you on about? Paid our debts to you indeed you diod helps us out but you owe a lot of americas succes to europes misfortune. The industrial backbone of britian was destroyed in the second world war completally we had to go back to the start. Whole towns absoultally decimated america never had this. Same all over europe! as for your comments about russia not been able to win the war themselves thats rubbish i have little doubt that russia would of destroyed germany you obvosly do not fully understand the sheer numbers of troops and tanks they had even before we launced our attrack they had hittler on the run we owe the russians so very much and i think its sad they are majorly over looked they didnt need us to win the war but we sure as hell needed them.

As for the american contribution to the world wars you entred them both late your landing on D day sank into the sea so there was infact minimal us forces in the innitial assult. Ive been to the landing site ive seen a video on it im informed !

i dont want this becomming an anti american thread because i bear you no ill will infact all the best you gave us basketball (big thanks) but forgive us if we sometimes question your methods. How america is been viewed at the moment (and this is pretty fair assement) is like the police force that answers to no one it is not your right to go into countries and say we are gonna take you out no country has that right the UN (even give all its faults) is the body that has to do that. You are playing a dangerous game and i hope for the worlds sake you realise that soon otherwise you wont be having another vietnam you will be having another world war

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think we've paid our fair share to Europe by protecting your a$$ from the Soviet Union. Also - Iraq wasn't a matter of protecting you - like throwing down Meloshevic was or standing guard in Europe for decades to make sure that the Soviet Union didn't try going beyond East Germany. I think your 40,000 troops (which a parliament member said was spreading your troops thin. I actually thought you had a larger army - seems you were relying more on the US to protect you than I thought. ) are a small price to pay for our defense of your country for years.

So - if you want us to pay - then I suggest you guys pay for the cold war and the rebuilding of Europe after WWII. Not to mention you can pay us for our military action during World War II and World War I.

I can guarantee the few times we have asked for your help - will be a drop in the bucket - but when you get our bill - it'll most likely bankrupt your country. You may have to actually cut back on some of those social programs you've been able to enjoy by sitting back and relying on OUR military.

Oh JD you do make me laugh! You've got so much resentment for you countries actions over the last 100 yrs or so.......such a shame.

Britain didn't rely on America during the cold war, we have been a nuclear power for the last 50 yrs, even the Russians weren't crazy enough to start the nuclear holocaust.

But hey! thanks for the help anyway, thanks to the "help" America provided during the cold war we have public services, welfare and social programs that are amongst the best in the world!

Maybe the American army should now be used on a Mercenary basis........? Might save ya some cash

[sun-star]

I would like to say something, if no one minds...

What's the point of arguing about the Second World War? Surely the great thing about it was that allies fought together, side by side. I know people of my grandparents' generation who have an undying respect for America based entirely on the fact that they fought together in WW2 (I know you didn't notice the Brits were in the war, but we did! As Sween pointed out, a lot of British towns were seriously damaged by bombing) So does it really matter who technically defeated the Germans/Japanese?

We are grateful, you know. We haven't forgotten. But it doesn't mean we have to agree with America for the next century because they helped us in the war(s).

Jerseydevil: I think your 40,000 troops (which a parliament member said was spreading your troops thin. I actually thought you had a larger army - seems you were relying more on the US to protect you than I thought. ) are a small price to pay for our defense of your country for years.

Is it me, or is there a contradiction here? You criticise the French and Germans for not joining in the war, and you criticise us for joining you! Sorry if you don't think our sacrifice great enough for you. Maybe instead of America stopping trying to please the world, like people here are suggesting, the world should stop trying to please America. Because you're just never satisifed, are you?

[Draken]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I I think your 40,000 troops (which a parliament member said was spreading your troops thin. I actually thought you had a larger army - seems you were relying more on the US to protect you than I thought. )

Yeah but we train them to try and shoot more of the enemy than each other. Makes 'em last that much longer.

[Lizra]

Why is Turkey upset over the Kurds moving into Kirkuk? What's up with Turkey?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by sun-star
I would like to say something, if no one minds...

What's the point of arguing about the Second World War? Surely the great thing about it was that allies fought together, side by side. I know people of my grandparents' generation who have an undying respect for America based entirely on the fact that they fought together in WW2 (I know you didn't notice the Brits were in the war, but we did! As Sween pointed out, a lot of British towns were seriously damaged by bombing) So does it really matter who technically defeated the Germans/Japanese?

We are grateful, you know. We haven't forgotten. But it doesn't mean we have to agree with America for the next century because they helped us in the war(s).

I am aware we fought together. But all we here from people anymore is how the wolrd wants to use OUR military for their purposes (which they see nothing wrong with, with or without UN approval) but then stand up and scream when the US tries to US it for our self interests.

As for World War II - my point about that was only that many thousands of Americans lost their lives in Europe in TWO world wars.

Is it me, or is there a contradiction here? You criticise the French and Germans for not joining in the war, and you criticise us for joining you! Sorry if you don't think our sacrifice great enough for you. Maybe instead of America stopping trying to please the world, like people here are suggesting, the world should stop trying to please America. Because you're just never satisifed, are you?

Obvioulsy you don't understand my point that I was trying to make. Nor did you take it in the context of Coneys repeated comments.

[Sween]

i would like to point out that britian has a very very small standing army we dont go in for vast batallions of men i think the armys infantarty is only 100,000 so 40,000 troops represents a very large force from us

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
JD you do amuse me greatly ! But what the hell are you on about? Paid our debts to you indeed you diod helps us out but you owe a lot of americas succes to europes misfortune. The industrial backbone of britian was destroyed in the second world war completally we had to go back to the start. Whole towns absoultally decimated america never had this. Same all over europe! as for your comments about russia not been able to win the war themselves thats rubbish i have little doubt that russia would of destroyed germany you obvosly do not fully understand the sheer numbers of troops and tanks they had even before we launced our attrack they had hittler on the run we owe the russians so very much and i think its sad they are majorly over looked they didnt need us to win the war but we sure as hell needed them.

I didn't say you didn't need Russia to win the war. But the thing is - Russia would not have survived without American involvement either. England was not going to survive without US help. After you were destroyed Germany would have been able to concentrate it's war machine on Russia. In the end I think a deal might have been reached, at least short term, between Russia and Germany. Europe would have been reduced to constant fighting.

As for the american contribution to the world wars you entred them both late your landing on D day sank into the sea so there was infact minimal us forces in the innitial assult. Ive been to the landing site ive seen a video on it im informed !

Why should we have rushed in to fight in two european wars? As I had repeatedly said in past threads - America at that time was an isolationist country. 75% of Americans didn't think we should get involved in World War II. We supplied you with material. The only way we were not involved was through miltary action.

America landed on the most fortified of the beaches. America was also fighting TWO empires and a two front war.

How america is been viewed at the moment (and this is pretty fair assement) is like the police force that answers to no one it is not your right to go into countries and say we are gonna take you out no country has that right the UN (even give all its faults) is the body that has to do that.

Were you up in arms when America was asked to come in and lead the attack against Meloshevic? No European country was attack. UN approval was never obtained.

You are playing a dangerous game and i hope for the worlds sake you realise that soon otherwise you wont be having another vietnam you will be having another world war

World War was declared by Osama Bin Ladin on 9/11. The Middle East MUST change and obviously those countries aren't going to change without soem pushes. True - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - but the regimes that hold down their people down must be reformed. The problems in these countries - as well as the Israeli/Palestinian situation must be resolved or else it will be imppossible to stop terrorism. It doesn't mean we're going to attack every country in the Middle East - but by bringing about a democracy in Iraq - we can helop spread democracy in the region, put pressure on the other countries to take a more active role in their own reforms.

Is this playing with fire? Of course it is. But we can continue sit back and do nothing - and it's not going to stop terrorism. The Middle East uses propaganda to turn their people against the west. These countries have 25+% unemployment - not because of the US - but because of their own countries. Instead of accepting their own problems though - they point the finger. The Midde East need a scapegoat for the problems of their people so they don't take out their frustrations on their own countries.

Hussien needed to be stopped - along time ago. I think this is clearly demonstrated by the way the people of Iraq are reacted by his downfall. Even without the possibility of him habing WMD - I think that for humaitarian reasons going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I was upset that we hadn't finished the job the first time. The world community held us back then though. The world community as well as Americans were also outraged by us bombing suspected hide outs of Osama Bin ladin too - and that ended up giving us 9/11. We're not going to risk not looking after our self interests again - just because the world doesn't think the time isn't right. If we feel their is a clear danger to this country - we will protect it. Right now it is very clear that danger is coming from the Middle East.