Still asleep at the switch...

[Kal]

Its nice to see the level of discourse rise so dramatically.

I can back up anything I said in this thread with volumes of hard facts. If facts don't sit well with you, I suppose an ad hominem attack is your last resort.

Just read the writings of your own Winston Churchill on the matter, he speaks more much eloquently on the subject than I. This was a television show on the Military Channel last night specifically on the subject, it is very fresh in my mind.

Which part of the Germans cancelled the attempt to invade the United Kingdom more than a year before Pearl Harbour are you having difficulty with?

Battle of Britain 10th July - 31st October 1940 (Battle of Britain Day 15th Saptember 1940)

Pearl Harbour 9th December 1941

Other nationalities serving in the RAF during the Battle of Britain

Poland 147; New Zealand 101; Canada 94; Czechoslovakia 87; Belgium 29; South Africa 22; Australia 21; France 14; Ireland 10; United States 7; Southern Rhodesia 2; Jamaica 1; Palestine 1.

So once again I reject your assertion that "America saved our Butts" and again suggest you go do something unnatural with goats.

[swatter555]

I can back up anything I said in this thread with volumes of hard facts. If facts don't sit well with you, I suppose an ad hominem attack is your last resort.

Which time - when you call people who disagree foreigners? Or is it when you won't watch something that makes a point then comment on it without seeing it?

You also stated I said Bush was THE source of terror in this world - a statement I never made. This makes me think your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. Terror is by its very definition an overhwelming sense of fear. That is something that many people have admitted in my presence, written articles on the web, and gone on national TV and said that they have serious concerns and yes, great fears, over what our administration is doing with its wars, and the way it handles its foreign policy. Just because you disagree does not mean that it is any less true. You may think feeling that way is dumb - but thats your personal opinion, not fact.

As far as facts, I was refering to the history discussion.

As to the rest of the disagreement with you, it doesnt even relate to this thread. I was talking about terrorism and Islam. You then say that the media and the administration are the biggest sources of terror. That is exactly the type of debate I will not enter into, not here at least.

If you have something to contribute as to the discussion at hand, then feel free to contribute.

[swatter555]

Its nice to see the level of discourse rise so dramatically.

I can back up anything I said in this thread with volumes of hard facts. If facts don't sit well with you, I suppose an ad hominem attack is your last resort.

Just read the writings of your own Winston Churchill on the matter, he speaks more much eloquently on the subject than I. This was a television show on the Military Channel last night specifically on the subject, it is very fresh in my mind.

Which part of the Germans cancelled the attempt to invade the United Kingdom more than a year before Pearl Harbour are you having difficulty with?

Battle of Britain 10th July - 31st October 1940 (Battle of Britain Day 15th Saptember 1940)

Pearl Harbour 9th December 1941

Other nationalities serving in the RAF during the Battle of Britain

Poland 147; New Zealand 101; Canada 94; Czechoslovakia 87; Belgium 29; South Africa 22; Australia 21; France 14; Ireland 10; United States 7; Southern Rhodesia 2; Jamaica 1; Palestine 1.

So once again I reject your assertion that "America saved our Butts" and again suggest you go do something unnatural with goats.

If thats the game you want to play, then here are the rules. I am not going to try and disprove the nebulous line of reasoning in which we have been engaged in thus far. You have to actually make a specific argument before I take the time to attempt to refute it. It has to be specific, such as: "The Allies would have won the war without the US". Not that you must use that argument, just something with a clear cut conclusion.

Also, stop it with the personal attacks, or this is the last sentence that will be addressed to you.

[swatter555]

extremism is usually a gross perversion of what ever religion. ATM its Islam, go back to the crusades and the inquisition and it was catholosism. (sp?) its easy to purpotrate violence in the name of god.

Well, Im having to conduct 2-3 different discussions in this thread, though this is what I wanted to talk about. I have myself to blame.

It is all relative. Lets say militant fundamentalist version of Islam wins out over the more moderate version of Islam. The more moderate version will be what is considered heresy, right? Just because it is a minority view doesnt mean it doesnt represent Islam in some fashion. I don't think it is pre-ordained that the moderate version of Islam is to win in the end.

To say that terrorism and Islam are seperate would be similar to saying the Inquisition had nothing to do with religion. The fact that a more moderate version of those religions is more popular at the moment doesnt take the religious element out of it.

To attempt to take the religious component out of terror commited by Muslim fundamentalist requires twisted logic and mental gymnastics that truly ignores not only solid logical reasoning, but also the words and warnings of the terrorists themselves.

[swatter555]

younggun- Also, I don't wish to take the time to correct someone with skewed and only passing knowledge of the subject of WWII.

Are you trying to say the US won the war?

I am telling you to pick up a book and find out for yourself.


Edit- Alright, Ill give a real answer. It would be accurate to say the Allies won the war. It would also be accurate to say that the US enabled the Allies not only to win, but prevent the post-war domination of western Europe by the communists. It would also be accurate to say that without the US, Europe would have been domintated by either Hitler or Stalin. Not a pleasant thought.

I have picked up books and read them about this and was taught this in school. So to my quote it was a joint effort by all that won the war is the truth you said it yourself, so where you are correcting me I dont see it. I never once said Europe could have done it without the US or its allies, I simply stated WW2 was won collectivly by allied forces consisting of Britain, US, France, and of course Canada plus other countries.

Its my fault, this entire thing is a result of the question being framed poorly. It was obviously a group effort. If the question is what would have happened had the US stayed neutral, then simple data and logical arguments could form a solid conclusion. I think the conclusion would be this: The Soviets would have likely defeated Germany by themselves, while England nipped at the heels of the continent. This would have been a very poor result in retrospect. I think the US prevented communist domination of mainland Europe. I think that is worthy of the butt saving comment.

[swatter555]

The disagreement started when you said:
"first of all the US did'nt save anyones butt in WW2"

That is where you messed up. That is where you passing knowledge of the subject bit you in the butt. While I would hesitate to put it in the terms, "we saved their butt"... it is essentially true.

France was there... I will have to leave it at that, I dont want to over-state their role.

So you are telling me it was the US and the US alone that won the war??? Would you still think they would have won it if all the allies pulled out and left the US there by themselves???? What was that.... I didnt think so....why dont you get off your high horse and realize it was a joint effort. Were you there in WW2, I didnt think so either, like you said you read books and watched tv, kinda like todays media. Maybe the US didnt have such a struggle with the Germans on their fronts because there wasnt many Germans there, maybe the Germans put more of their men on the fronts against the allies to defend against them. But then again I'm sorry to discredit you cause you read books and watch tv.

Once again, a passing knowlegde.

[Kal]

If thats the game you want to play, then here are the rules. I am not going to try and disprove the nebulous line of reasoning in which we have been engaged in thus far. You have to actually make a specific argument before I take the time to attempt to refute it. It has to be specific, such as: "The Allies would have won the war without the US". Not that you must use that argument, just something with a clear cut conclusion.

Also, stop it with the personal attacks, or this is the last sentence that will be addressed to you.

Okay I'll spell it out for you.

party Germany tried to take Great Britain and lost before America, with 7 individual exceptions, entered the war.*

Therefore America did not save Britains butt. Futhermore it annoys us when Americans insist that they did.

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film ... e55566.ece

[younggun]

younggun- Also, I don't wish to take the time to correct someone with skewed and only passing knowledge of the subject of WWII.

Are you trying to say the US won the war?

I am telling you to pick up a book and find out for yourself.


Edit- Alright, Ill give a real answer. It would be accurate to say the Allies won the war. It would also be accurate to say that the US enabled the Allies not only to win, but prevent the post-war domination of western Europe by the communists. It would also be accurate to say that without the US, Europe would have been domintated by either Hitler or Stalin. Not a pleasant thought.

So you have stated a few times now it was the allies that won the war, that is what I said from the start, but in your mind I was wrong, either case if the allies won the war how can you single out the US and the US only, what if I was to say that Canada saved Britains butt, not that I would because I know it was a joint effort, so again why are you singling out the US as the ones who save the world?

I have picked up books and read them about this and was taught this in school. So to my quote it was a joint effort by all that won the war is the truth you said it yourself, so where you are correcting me I dont see it. I never once said Europe could have done it without the US or its allies, I simply stated WW2 was won collectivly by allied forces consisting of Britain, US, France, and of course Canada plus other countries.

Its my fault, this entire thing is a result of the question being framed poorly. It was obviously a group effort. If the question is what would have happened had the US stayed neutral, then simple data and logical arguments could form a solid conclusion. I think the conclusion would be this: The Soviets would have likely defeated Germany by themselves, while England nipped at the heels of the continent. This would have been a very poor result in retrospect. I think the US prevented communist domination of mainland Europe. I think that is worthy of the butt saving comment.

[Nalian]

I can back up anything I said in this thread with volumes of hard facts. If facts don't sit well with you, I suppose an ad hominem attack is your last resort.

Which time - when you call people who disagree foreigners? Or is it when you won't watch something that makes a point then comment on it without seeing it?

You also stated I said Bush was THE source of terror in this world - a statement I never made. This makes me think your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. Terror is by its very definition an overhwelming sense of fear. That is something that many people have admitted in my presence, written articles on the web, and gone on national TV and said that they have serious concerns and yes, great fears, over what our administration is doing with its wars, and the way it handles its foreign policy. Just because you disagree does not mean that it is any less true. You may think feeling that way is dumb - but thats your personal opinion, not fact.

As far as facts, I was refering to the history discussion.

As to the rest of the disagreement with you, it doesnt even relate to this thread. I was talking about terrorism and Islam. You then say that the media and the administration are the biggest sources of terror. That is exactly the type of debate I will not enter into, not here at least.

If you have something to contribute as to the discussion at hand, then feel free to contribute.

Alright - you started the conversation speaking about the war on terrorism without specifying that you only wanted it to be about one single line. But if thats how you want to play it - fine.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/ - looks like it wasn't an imminent threat anymore than everything else thats being planned on the world is imminent. British police knew who these folks where and at what stages in planning they were at. They wanted to surveil them for a few more weeks - the US wanted them arrested now. Then they come on TV and tell us that we narrowly missed having bunches of planes blown up and "unimaginable loss of life" was averted. They don't mention the fact that it wasn't set to happen that day and they don't know when.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have arrested them - I'm saying that they shouldn't go on TV and be like "look at what almost happened - TODAY!!!*#(!&@!" when it wouldn't have been today, and they knew it. Just tell us the truth! We'll still be happy that they were arrested!

Instead they lie and raise the terror alert level.

Apparently it wasn't a foiled

[swatter555]

If thats the game you want to play, then here are the rules. I am not going to try and disprove the nebulous line of reasoning in which we have been engaged in thus far. You have to actually make a specific argument before I take the time to attempt to refute it. It has to be specific, such as: "The Allies would have won the war without the US". Not that you must use that argument, just something with a clear cut conclusion.

Also, stop it with the personal attacks, or this is the last sentence that will be addressed to you.

Okay I'll spell it out for you.

party Germany tried to take Great Britain and lost before America, with 7 individual exceptions, entered the war.*

Therefore America did not save Britains butt. Futhermore it annoys us when Americans insist that they did.

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film ... e55566.ece

That is why I didn't want to argue against a nebulous argument, because we really don't disagree a whole lot. BTW, the article you cited was spot on. I think the people in Hollywood over simplify and outright falsify history for what they think is dramatic effect. Like the qoute early in the thread from "V for Vendetta" when V tells Natalie Portman "Artists use lies to tell the truth." In the above cases, lies are just lies and people end up less informed.

I will try and frame this in a respectful way, because the UK's commitment and sacrifice during WWII was complete and inspiring. While it is true that the Germans didn't have much of a chance of invading England after the BoB in 1940, that wasn't the only card they had to play. The fact is the greatest threat to England was the battle raging in the Atlantic. Were it not for Lend Lease aid, the UK would have been strangled and forced to sue for peace at latest by 1942. With Lend Lease it was a very close deal.

The US gave out, in todays dollars, 657 billion dollars in Lend-Lease aid, 60% of which went to the UK. The following is a link to a page that lists the ships involved in the Lend Lease program:
http://www.ww2pacific.com/lendlease.html

As to saving this or that, I doubt that matters in the wider scope of things. In the end, the most evil regime in human history was annihilated, the rest is just rather unimportant details I suppose.

I got mad earlier in the thread and was ranting. While you are bewildered by Americans holding WWII over the people of Europe, we are equally bewildered by how short the collective memory of Europeans is and their abililty to remember what real Nazis look like.