you know what is really dumb?

Printable View

May 14th, 2003, 05:20 PM
jle5509

you know what is really dumb?

many people here in the US are acting all stupid about the whole"US is always right, how dare you disagree with us because you are wrong and evil if you do" what is it with all the french bad mouthing? and the "france would be speaking german if it wasn't for us"?

history fact: USA would NOT be an INDEPENDET nation if it wasn't for FRANCE. The British were the most powerful nation in the world, militarily and economically speaking and france was second. the french after the american victory over the British (which was minor one and one of the few we had) decided to help waging an intercolonial war, fighting Britain in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Britain couldn't take the pressure and since their resources were being focused on the important war against france, plus the frence blockade, it made it imposible for the british to fight an efficient war on the easily defeatable rebels.

France has always been a wonderful, powerful, and militarily superior nation but being to close to germany made her fall. The US alone did not LIBERATE Europe I would say that The RUSSIANS were the ones who defeated hittler with the help of the allies and not the other way around.
May 14th, 2003, 06:59 PM
V

Re: you know what is really dumb?

history fact: USA would NOT be an INDEPENDET nation if it wasn't for FRANCE. The British were the most powerful nation in the world, militarily and economically speaking and france was second. the french after the american victory over the British (which was minor one and one of the few we had) decided to help waging an intercolonial war, fighting Britain in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Britain couldn't take the pressure and since their resources were being focused on the important war against france, plus the frence blockade, it made it imposible for the british to fight an efficient war on the easily defeatable rebels.

So therefore we should all be grateful to France? What happened more than 300 years ago should not be blamed on or thanked for to any specific nation, because none of what they had then (the politics) exists now. This is especially true since France has completely changed its policy on helping the US.

WWII, however, was not much more than half a century ago. Also, the US war policies of that time remain even today. I think Mike or that environmentalist (sorry for not remembering your name, it's long and in Russian) said something like "who cares what happened several generations ago?" I agree with this, especially if the only link between the past and the present is a nation that has changed a lot since whatever happened.

By the way, the blockade you mentioned had virtually no effect at all.

France has always been a wonderful, powerful, and militarily superior nation but being to close to germany made her fall. The US alone did not LIBERATE Europe I would say that The RUSSIANS were the ones who defeated hittler with the help of the allies and not the other way around

A bit earlier this year I was convinced that Saudi Arabia was the best nominee for Worst "Ally" of the Year. This has definitely changed to France. They may seem wonderful, but they're not. They are CERTAINLY not a powerful and militarily superior nation. It may seem like that too, but it seems they won't accept the fact that things change and they should stop being so arrogant. (I am talking about the government, not the people.)

The US alone did not liberate Europe (why did you stress LIBERATE? they did liberate it, only not ALONE), but they did give the war a turning point - not alone, but more so than Russia. Russia was practically allied to Germany, cooperated with them militarily, and did not give a damn about them until Germany decided to invade Russia. Then Russia liberated themselves, and continued all the way to Berlin and liberated everything between Berlin and Russia. About the Russians coming first to Berlin, it was a simple race for honor, and the Russians drove faster. How honorable.

You may say that the USA did not care about Germany until they were invaded, either, but that is not true. The government wanted to care, but they didn't have enough support. Pearl Harbor gave them that support.

When you think about it, the USA and the UK liberated North Africa. The USA and the UK liberated Italy, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, and most of Germany. Also, it was after the allied attacks on Anzio and Normandy that Russia could really push forward. Joseph Stalin had been begging his allies to pleeeeasse please please please open a second front on the Germans, and when that happened - the Germans were defeated.
May 14th, 2003, 09:48 PM
mike

France's motives for helping the US were purely in self-interest. Just like ours, just like everyone's. If anyone has ideas of one country going, "Oh, man! We really need to help those people over there! They are in trouble!" they ought to wake up. There may be a handful of exceptions, but as much as I'd like to shatter the pessimistic generalization I just made I can't even think of any with the exception of perhaps the Swedish in WW2, who helped smuggle many Jews to safety from Denmark at their own risk. Of course this was more individual acts of humanity than the country of Sweden openly defying the Nazis (which they didn't).

One has to wonder about Russia's alliance with Germany, and whether it was really an act of ideological compatibilities between Hitler and Stalin (both brutal reactionaries with left-of-center economic policies) or Stalin sensing it was probably a good idea not to piss off such a powerful neighboring military when his country's industrialization and army were still in their infancy compared to the Western World. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer and all that.

Anyway, if you planned to please don't reply to any of this because I'm getting bored with talking about politics for the time being yet cannot resist the temptation and will probably suffer debate withdrawal and wake up in an alley behind a closed down Wal-Mart in the process of joining a suicide pact with Robert Downey Jr. or something.
May 15th, 2003, 05:45 PM
jle5509

so you really think britain and US had more to do with the victory on the European front (the pasific was all US) but let's say hittler wouldnt have made that stupid mistake of attacking Russia (which im grateful for because i dont think it would have been a good world with the german so called master race running it) do you think the allies would have stood a chance against the germans 1 on 1 and better yet with the russians on their side ????? i doubt it (russia did more than the other allies, because she held up the german army on the east while the allies went for the soft spots)
May 15th, 2003, 09:43 PM
V

This is obviously not about the US and UK being able to beat Germany on their own (although that was probably possible). It's about them doing most of the job. I also don't see how you can call western Europe a soft spot. Keep in mind, also, that if the Brits would not have fought so hard against Germany, the Germans would have conquered Britain -> Sweden -> Finland -> Russia. And without the help of the US, the Soviet Union would probably have been defeated even on the eastern front. US aircraft flew in lots of supplies and ammo to the Russians to help lift the 900 day siege at Leningrad for instance. So the Russians didn't hold up the Germans on the east either. As I said earlier, they beat the Germans because of allied support (supplies and a western front.)
May 16th, 2003, 12:02 AM
Dogboy182

Jle u said that britan was the most powerfull country in the world, and without frane, they wouldave beat us... well. heres a little common sense for you, it does not matter how powerfull u are. its all in the head. in the 1970's america was the most power full country in the *western world* at least. fighting in vietnam against farmers with stakes and an irregular army scartterd all to hell. But they just wanted it more than we did! technologo or numbers has actually very litle to do with war when you are dealing with somthing like pride and love for your country. therefore i think if the iraqis really loved theri leader, and country, we would still be fighting in iraq, we might be winning, and would probly win eventaully, but iraq had the opportunity to screw us up. just like in the revolution. we were farmers with 50 year old guns and no skillz, we just wanted it more. and we got it. i say screw france, we don't owe them crap. and, didn't france invade new oreleins in the 1800's somtime? wow, some appriciation there.
May 16th, 2003, 12:35 PM
mike

Quote:

and, didn't france invade new oreleins in the 1800's somtime? wow, some appriciation there.

Are you thinking of the Battle of New Orleans between the Americans and English? The French were on our side in the War of 1812... Maybe you're confusing it with the XYZ Affair?
May 16th, 2003, 05:09 PM
jle5509

my point is: why do we (not me but people in the radio,tv, even regular people) say "france is a country because of us" or give off the impression that france should not question our policies, shut their mouth because they owe their existance to us and be our little dogs kinda like Blair is doing.

that is my point, we shouldn't act like europeans owe their freedom to us the all mighty US of A, regardless of all the missinformation and the pride that it was us who made the difference, we were a big part of WW2 but Russia was the one who ultimatly won it, the way I see it is if the entire german army wasn't distracted fighting the Sovyetskaya Armiya US and britain wouldn't have won the war against hittler.
May 16th, 2003, 08:45 PM
mike

I don't know how relevant this is to anything, but Soviet prisoners were also treated a lot worse than the Allies. Many of them were forced to work under brutal conditions and/or were executed for imaginary reasons while the English and American prisoners across the fence would be (usually) accorded the rights of the Geneva Convention. This was especially common near the end of the war when Germany could barely keep its POW camps running.
May 16th, 2003, 10:08 PM
V

The Germans actually started executing very many American and Canadian POWs towards the end of the war, but yes, you are right. The entire eastern front, it seems, was a lot more rough than any other front.
May 17th, 2003, 03:51 AM
Dogboy182

jle5509>

Why must you deny facts. you know damn well russia wouldnot have went on and liberated france, and hlped britan... stalin didn't care about them. so, really the do owe thier "freedom" to us. twice over.
May 17th, 2003, 07:51 AM
V

...also, when did the Germans ever beat the British???
May 17th, 2003, 10:23 AM
Oddo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike

France's motives for helping the US were purely in self-interest. Just like ours, just like everyone's. If anyone has ideas of one country going, "Oh, man! We really need to help those people over there! They are in trouble!" they ought to wake up. There may be a handful of exceptions, but as much as I'd like to shatter the pessimistic generalization I just made I can't even think of any with the exception of perhaps the Swedish in WW2.....

ever tried the allied army in WW2? Britain, France and probably other countries which I can't think of at the moment didn't wait to be attacked to join in the war. Britain actively protected the rights of the countries Germany way attacking (at first "If you don't leave wherever we will make you" then when they didn't we entered the war. A much larger scale example than a few wonderful swedish families.
May 17th, 2003, 12:33 PM
mike

Not waiting to be attacked (which I'm sure they saw as an inevitability considering how much preparation they made in the 30s in case of a war with the Germans) before declaring a war is not the same thing as acting selflessly. By the way, all Britain did in the beginning of the war was drop propaganda over German cities, reject an offer from the USSR for an alliance with France and Poland (and someone else, I can't remember who...the Czechs maybe), and make meaningless demands for the Nazis to stop. What active protection of the rights of those countries! And look how effective it was!
May 17th, 2003, 07:06 PM
V

Well yeah, the British did place troops in France to protect it, but didn't have a big enough force to attack Germany. Then when the Germans went into France, the Brits had to evacuate. And even between that time and D-Day there were thousands of British SOE agents and other spies, etc, who were very actively building up an active French and German resistance, as well as sabotaging German military installations (tons of them), gathering intelligence, and freeing prisoners of all kinds, including jews and political prisoners from concentration camps. Also, remember the war between the Luftwaffe and the RAF? THAT was very active. Then don't forget the many British special operations strikes on German bases in Norway and also the liberation of Norway, as well as the liberation of North Africa.

By the way, your thoughts about the Swede who saved Jews are a little too high. Before rescuing those people, he actually helped the Germans capture them.
May 17th, 2003, 10:24 PM
mike

Well, you're right. I didn't say no country has ever acted purely on behalf of another. I shouldn't have even replied to Oddo, but the old habit of arguing for no reason at all is hard to break.
May 17th, 2003, 10:31 PM
V

Lol, getting addicted, eh?
May 17th, 2003, 10:33 PM
mike

Some people buy a little rock garden, some go golfing, some get drunk and empty a shotgun into a tree trunk. I get into pointless debates with people on the internet.
May 20th, 2003, 08:12 AM
TheMoonMonst3r

Re: you know what is really dumb?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jle5509

many people here in the US are acting all stupid about the whole"US is always right, how dare you disagree with us because you are wrong and evil if you do" what is it with all the french bad mouthing? and the "france would be speaking german if it wasn't for us"?

history fact: USA would NOT be an INDEPENDET nation if it wasn't for FRANCE. The British were the most powerful nation in the world, militarily and economically speaking and france was second. the french after the american victory over the British (which was minor one and one of the few we had) decided to help waging an intercolonial war, fighting Britain in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Britain couldn't take the pressure and since their resources were being focused on the important war against france, plus the frence blockade, it made it imposible for the british to fight an efficient war on the easily defeatable rebels.

France has always been a wonderful, powerful, and militarily superior nation but being to close to germany made her fall. The US alone did not LIBERATE Europe I would say that The RUSSIANS were the ones who defeated hittler with the help of the allies and not the other way around.

The French language is so great... especially cursing. It feels like I am whiping my @@@ with silk.

(is whiping even a word???!!! what is the present form of (to) whipe as in to whipe of a stain in the carpet.)
May 20th, 2003, 08:16 AM
TheMoonMonst3r

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike

Some people buy a little rock garden, some go golfing, some get drunk and empty a shotgun into a tree trunk.

You know what?

That is really dumb
May 20th, 2003, 12:24 PM
mike

What is dumb? Besides the activities themselves (of which golfing would be the dumbest and most wasteful/elitist).
May 20th, 2003, 08:49 PM
russkayalove

I know! I took a golf coarse one semester at school because I thought it might actually be kindof interesting, and it was so slow and boring. All I would do is daydream all the time in class and smack nats flying around my head. The only good golf if put-put. Just so this post will not be way off topic, I will also add, I heard that in Russia golf is considered an extremely prestigous sport, true?
May 21st, 2003, 07:08 AM
TheMoonMonst3r

We do stupider stuff in America!!! Like spill coffee while driving and suing fast food companys and having sex in Starbucks bathroom's. :wink:

Is stupider even a word?!?!?!
May 21st, 2003, 02:12 PM
mike

:| What's wrong with the last one? Man, I can't tell you how many times I've thought about eating dinner in some coat and tie restaurant in uptown Manhattan and just going at it in front of all those snobby cosmopolitans. Unfortunately, I don't own a coat or tie.
May 24th, 2003, 12:40 PM
Oddo

Re: you know what is really dumb?

[quote="TheMoonMonst3r(is whiping even a word???!!! what is the present form of (to) whipe as in to whipe of a stain in the carpet.)[/quote]

whiping is not a word. whiPPing means to hit with a cane or belt or something similar, (be) wiping is the present form of to wipe as in wiping off a stain

I am wiping my computer screen with a cleaning product.
I am whipping my horse with a horse-whip.
May 31st, 2003, 06:06 AM
In Love With Russia

The Americans backstabbed Britain to keep slavery in their country.
May 31st, 2003, 08:32 AM
Dogboy182

Re: you know what is really dumb?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMoonMonst3r

Quote:

Originally Posted by jle5509

many people here in the US are acting all stupid about the whole"US is always right, how dare you disagree with us because you are wrong and evil if you do" what is it with all the french bad mouthing? and the "france would be speaking german if it wasn't for us"?

history fact: USA would NOT be an INDEPENDET nation if it wasn't for FRANCE. The British were the most powerful nation in the world, militarily and economically speaking and france was second. the french after the american victory over the British (which was minor one and one of the few we had) decided to help waging an intercolonial war, fighting Britain in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Britain couldn't take the pressure and since their resources were being focused on the important war against france, plus the frence blockade, it made it imposible for the british to fight an efficient war on the easily defeatable rebels.

France has always been a wonderful, powerful, and militarily superior nation but being to close to germany made her fall. The US alone did not LIBERATE Europe I would say that The RUSSIANS were the ones who defeated hittler with the help of the allies and not the other way around.

The French language is so great... especially cursing. It feels like I am whiping my @@@ with silk.

(is whiping even a word???!!! what is the present form of (to) whipe as in to whipe of a stain in the carpet.)

1. the french language sucks
2. you can't even come up with your own quotes, you have to steal them from movies about people wearing sunglasses at night, doing flips around bullets, and saving zion from machines. hmm what movie could this be.
June 2nd, 2003, 08:49 PM
In Love With Russia

This topic really speaks to me.

The Americans are dissing the French because they didn't go to war with Iraq. America is saying that France is scared to fight. When in reality they are just smart.

Also, many Americans say that if it wasn't for them France would've been under Hitler's control for eternity. The western allies did indeed fight Hitler and do some good to the world, but it was really the USSR that won WW2.