Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/26/05 05:34 AM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: only bits of it. the rest is compiled by professional researchers

As is mine. Notice the sources cited.

Again, just google the statistic, it's unanimously accepted.

wrong! you didnt crack that code. it was cracked in britain. and we're not fighting apparently so tough luck there.

Well technically we had a base long before that but nevertheless the same place we bombed Japan from. Aircraft carriers and offshore islands.

Which is why I am saying that the conflict would end up as a draw.

The German Navy, in addition to its uboat fleet, had battleships, battlecruisers, armoured cruisers, heavy cruisers, light cruisers and destroyers

The Kriegsmarine was defeated very early in the war. Thats why Germany was never able to stage a naval bombardment. It was very very weak.

actually the pacific front was split up between the US and the British

Are you kidding me? Your brand new navy was decimated early on. As was your air force. All you managed to do was not lose Australia.

Ok we're on to air forces. The Germans were making approx 40,000 planes a year during the war, which isnt bad and can't be too far away from the US peaksince its peak wartime strength was 75,000 planes. About the same as the Luftwaffe

http://en.wikipedia..._aircraft_production

Compared to our 100,000. That isn't much.

Also you forget (or simply never knew) that Germany was bringing jet planes into play by the end of the actual war. These were outstanding planes but came too late to make a difference. Since your war lasts longer they can use these against you too.

The jet fighters were often easily taked down, they were not silver bullets. Fighter pilots would just fly up above them and dive down to take them.

Irregardless, everyone had jet planes.

id like to have one more go at what youve said. one more, no more after that i promise. where exactly are you going to stage a firebombing of German targets from. Britains not in so you can't do it from there.

The same place we did it from for Japan.

Aircraft Carriers and captured territory.

At 7/26/05 11:21 AM, W31RD0 wrote: Dasani is tap water you moron.

No it's not idiot. It's the same water they use in Coke. They do a bunch of shit to it first. No tap water tastes like that.

Nice to see that your knowledge is based only on what you see in the commercials between reality tv and conservativly biased news stories.

What the hell does reality TV have to do with this?

And how did you manage to make a conservative bias out of this?

Dude fuck you pepsi goes flat in 5 minutes.

Coke makes Dasani too, best water ever. If you could concentrate the pain and suffering of others into a liquid, I'm guessing it would be that.

We will bomb Italy before we give them up.

At 7/25/05 08:12 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: Id much rather believe my history site, not an essay. and not because it has the numbers i want. its just more professional

Wtf? Yours is an essay too. At least mine cites sources. 12 million is commonly excepted, google it.

I wouldnt underestimate the capacity Germany wouldve had if it controlled all of europe. without anyone to defend north africa and since in this conflict russia isnt playing, the germans have acces to the oil down there.

It takes far more than a few years to turn the production output of a country into your favor, so saying Germany controlled all of Europe is outlandish. But even at that, Germany did not experience oil shortages until Romania had been taken.

but even with what the US had, they wouldve had to spread their resources between their fronts. itd be an epic fight but i see such a conflict ending in a draw. now i know you americans hate such a concept but i cant see victory.

The fact of the matter is, none of them could have invaded America. Germany's only navy was the U-Boat and that was made useless by our cracking of the enigma code and sonar.

Japans navy was beaten essentially single-handedly by us so that is really of no worry.

Our production of planes outmatched theirs by so much that they could have never caught up.

We're only outnumbered in population, and that hardly matters when we can firebomb thier cities.

At 7/26/05 01:23 AM, darkmage8 wrote:

At 7/25/05 06:00 PM, Jimsween wrote: Proof? Why didn't we just pressure them before then?

By threatening to attack them if they didn't let us in to defend their oil market? The only way the U.S was getting into the Middle-East was through an invitation. The CIA knew that troops were ready to move into Kuwait, and Sadam went in because he was convinced the U.S wouldn't interfere after the State Department kept telling him they had no obligations to defend Kuwait. Now that there's an official crisis at hand, the Bush Administration at the time conjures up satellite imagery they claimed prooved that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were clustering at the Saudi Border. The Saudis give in to the claim and ask for aid.

First of all, none of that was proof.

Second, Iraq had a war going on for quite some time, why couldn't we have made something up then?

How do we benefit? Please, enlighten me. And at that, the troops would only be there for the duration of the war. Anything else is not under the same pretense.

The United States benefited by stimulating their arms industry through selling Saddam hussein the weapons he was attacking Kuwait with, and then lied to Saudi Arabia about the heavily exhaggerated impending attack so they could finally get an invitation to establish a military presence and create American Influence in the Middle East, which it definitely did. We'd be trying to do it with Iran as our insider for years. Even though the Shah of Iran was very cooperative with the United States, him being overthrown by anti-west preacher Ayatohla Kohmeini was an obvious sign that people in the middle-east had to *want* the United States to be there in first place.

Arms industry? I'm interested, how many people do you think are employed by our arms industry? And at that, you've only managed to turn it into an even bigger conspiracy with no proof to back your claims up.

I refer to the Gulf War because it goes hand in hand with many reasons why we are hated so much in the Middle-East. I'm not pointing the finger at Iraq for terrorist acts in the United States. I'm saying that the Gulf War, as one example, went way over-kill and needlessly decimated Iraq and kept it in ruins long after the Iraqis could no longer fight. With the heavy death tolls, raw sewage leaking out onto the streets, no medicine, and no power supply, Iraq became a beacon for people to look and migrate to who hated the West.

No terrorist group has cited the gulf war for the reason of thier hatred. Nor has any terrorist of Iraqi nationality attacked us. That kind of throws your whole theory out the roof doesn't it.

You cite sanctions and bombings as examples of the US going overboard. What else is there to do? Invade Iraq? Yeah, that worked well.

Dropping 88,500 tons of bombs on everything that looks like a military structure in the span of a month will do that to a small country, especially before you even walk across the boarder. The cruise missles did all the damage needed to take Kuwait and Southern Iraq in the span of 24 hours. Keeping the sanctions on them after the fact, and for so long, flirts with genocide.

Millions upon millions of bombs were dropped on Germany and it still managed to hold out for another year.

The very same, can be said about Japan.

88 thousand tons is nothing.

But I'm sure you consulted a military expert before coming to the conclusion that we destroyed Iraq with our bombs.

Against Coalition forces and Pro-West Iraqis, yes.

And thus my point is proven.

At 7/25/05 07:41 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote:

thats leaving out the rest of the axis alliance

For one thing, those numbers cant be right, it is a fact that at the end the number of active duty troops were 12 million. http://www.eldredwwi..seum.org/winner.html

And at that, thier numbers are inflated because near the end they started massive forced militia enrollment of the populace. They arent soldiers they are just civilians and some of them have guns.

Not to mention, yet again, that we massively outweighted them in production.

At 7/25/05 07:24 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: I disagree. You didn't have the manpower to a)fight the germans and italians (although they werent hard to beat) on the european front, b)fight the Japanese in the pacific and c)maintain defence forces on the homeland.

12 million is a subjective number. that isnt the number of active troops you had.

i cant convince you of the answer to a 'what if' question. they can be interpreted in many ways. so i suggest we agree to disagree

The 12 million were the active duty troops. Our manpower was actually even much greater.

50% of the aircraft and vehicles in the world during the war were the the US's, and nearly all of the oens Britain had were from us anyway.

At 7/25/05 07:15 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: apparently so. look, your war sounds worthy of a film but i really dont think that the US couldve done it back then.

Why not? We had the manpower and production capacity.

At 7/25/05 06:34 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: so if this war takes so long, what happens to the jews? the holocaust wouldve been even more horific!

I never said otherwise.

But thats beside the point now, isn't it?

At 7/25/05 06:23 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: what if questions are extremely hard to answer...but they seem to be the favourite these days

so its just the US vs the Axis forces. No Eastern Front, no north african front, just the pacific and the western. do you see the problem yet?
The third reich wasnt weak, it wouldve taken considerable effort to do that. and then theres the pacific to consider.

The way we won we had a HUGE victory. It would have been much harder and taken longer, but we would have won. First by air, then by sea, then by land.

At 7/25/05 05:48 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: It doesnt work like that. Each of the participants were on a front and taking up the enemies resources.

The war would never have been won, for instance, without the Russians. But the couldnt have won it all on their own

I say it would have. US military power was that strong. The war would have lasted longer, but we would have won.

We had an army of 12 million, the best equipped army at that. Our production capacity was massive and only growing more. We could have won.

At 7/25/05 12:18 AM, darkmage8 wrote: Saudi Arabia was pressured into accepting aid from the United States.

Proof? Why didn't we just pressure them before then?

You honestly believe that the United States didn't benefit from stationing troops in Saudi Arabia? We'd been trying to get into the middle-east since the end of the second world war, but no one wanted a large western military base, especially the United States, in their region. You don't just commit half-a-million trips on the other side of the planet with nothing to gain.

How do we benefit? Please, enlighten me. And at that, the troops would only be there for the duration of the war. Anything else is not under the same pretense.

Ironic that you think the casualties were minimal and accurate. The civilian casulties in Iraq are debatably astronomical when one looks at the size and population. There is no way you're going to knock out the entire foundation of a country like it's water purification systems and power grids that keep medicine deprived hospitals running and come out of that conflict with 5,000 civilian deaths. There was a Demographer for the Department of Commerce back in '92 that lost her job for contradicting the figures the White House gave out. Figures that estimated Iraqi casulties over 10,000 killed directly, and over 50,000 civilians killed in post-war Iraq.

You're still talking about the first gulf war, look back, analyze, what would make you think we were talking about that one? Where I explicitly stated that we weren't?

By that time Sadam was being shown on every T.V giving food to children as a hero against the oppression of Iraq. Keeping the sanctions on Iraq for so long didn't do anything but kill civilians and fester out more hate for the United States.

And cripple the Iraqi army? Notice we didn't encounter any tanks, or air force?

You said Terrorism comes out of poverty and oppresion. I give you the Economic Sanction.

The only Iraqi terrorists we've had so far have commited terrorism in Iraq.

At 7/25/05 09:04 AM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: I actually do military history. I try to keep an open mind and I think that you seriously can't take all the credit for yourself. The victory of WWii is a joint one, as ive said. Russia, the USA, Britain and its empire and the canadians won that war.

I realize that it was a joint operation. But my point is, it didn't have to be. Without the US, it would not have been won, and on that same token the US could have won it all alone.

Interne..... nevermind.

At 7/24/05 10:15 PM, Mr_Snickers wrote: And as for the Kuwait thing above I've been afk for awhile. The fact is Kuwait was still stealing from Iraq it doesnt matter if they were smaller. They shoulda known better. Would walk up and pickpocket a 15 foot tall giant with a violent past?

Does that justify them kicking your ass? No.

If you saw a person who pickpocketed another person being brutally beaten you would be completely justfied in helping them.

At 7/25/05 12:44 AM, darkmage8 wrote: America had just finished up with some other dumb war.

The revolutionary war?

The war of 1812 was near the end of the Napoleanic war.

At 7/24/05 09:54 PM, cOnScRiPtRED wrote: Holy hell, they should really have watched a little closer than his race, style, and attitude rather than his actions to judge him as a threat.

If you can't judge someone as a threat based on thier race, style, attitude, and actions then how can you judge a person as a threat?

What else is there?

At 7/24/05 09:07 PM, capn_g wrote: Germany invaded Poland and Britain declared war on them. That's not a direct threat to Britain.

It is when it directly violates Britain's non-aggression pact with them.

At 7/24/05 08:45 PM, capn_g wrote: You let the world GET that way in the first place. You could've stepped up when you were asked but you didn't, you sat on your laurels. If it wasn't for Pearl Harbour you probably would have continued to sit on your hands and the war would have dragged on even longer.

Waah waahh wahh.
We told you to go easy on Germany at the end of the fist war. You didn't listen.
We told you to not demand so much money from Germany during thier depression. You didn't listen.
We gave millions to Germany in order to alleviate thier depression.

You all did nothing in Asia until it was too late too. You only acted when you were under threat. Just like the US.

At 7/24/05 08:41 PM, darkmage8 wrote: I have to disagree with you there. No one wanted the United States in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the middle east.

Saudi Arabia did. They asked us to come there. Kuwait did obviously.

It was only after the United States had supplied Sadam with weapons and publically announced, or rather emphisised, that it had no obligations to protect Kuwait that Sadam invaded the area. Then, conicidentally now that Saudi Arabia was under attack, the United States insisted that they offer aid against these "acts of terror".

You make it seem as if we somehow benefit from stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. We have to pay money to have them there.

So few casualties?

Strange, after I said this, I thought you would state the number of casualties, but instead you went to talk about how we fought the war. I can only assume that is because you know that there were very few casualties.

The united states dropped an equivilant of 7 1/2 hiroshma bombs in 42 days.

With how many deaths? At the most, 5,000.

They knocked out water supplies, power supplies, and systematically killed the food chain from one end of the country to the other.

And yet very few people died.

And in the end, they leave the country with their terrorist leader in place. The United States made it specific that they would only solve the conflict through force. When Yemen, the poorest arab country in the world, voted against the use of force in Iraq at the UN the united states pulled off it's entire Aid Budget of $70 million three days later. Shortly after, the UN unanimously votes "ok" for force in Iraq.

Funny, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. And at that, your talking about the first gulf war.

The United States not only chooses NOT to take Sadam, but keeps economic sanctions that prohibit medicine from comming into Iraq. What is it to the United States that Iraqi citizens have medicine to live? Are kids going to make nuclear bombs out of a few tablets of Tylenol?

And in our one attempt to reduce the severity of the sanctions, it's used to fund the army.

At 7/24/05 08:23 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Im not sure Id go so far to say we saved the world.

I would. The Soviets might have been able to survive. The Brtish would not have been able to hold out without our planes. And then the Germans would have invaded.

The Japanese easily would have dominated Asia. The Soviets then would have to deal with them, too.

At 7/24/05 07:52 PM, Mr_Snickers wrote: It is not the States right to meddle in every single affair that happens in the world. Sometimes Wars have to be settled between the ones where it began.

Show me an example where anything good came out of letting two countries fight a war with eachother, preferrably one within the past 100 years. Majority of the time, it ends in either genocide or many civilian losses.

And at that, Kuwait is much smaller than Iraq.

And Iraq was defending itself. Kuwait was slant drilling stealing Iraq's oil is which is what there nations economy fringes on.

There is absolutely no proof of that.

And at that, there is nothing illegal about slant drilling.

Also, that wouldn't justify Iraqs occupation of Kuwait.

And furthermore, it is obvious that Iraq invaded to get Kuwait's oil. They were in debt.

At 7/24/05 07:41 PM, Mr_Snickers wrote: Saved the world? the USA didnt do squat in WW2 til the near end when the Japs attacked em.

We stepped in 2 years after Britain and Frace. Right about where Britain was about to be invaded. We saved the world, anyone with the slightest bit of military knowledge knows this.

USA did deserve 9/11 I think. States did attack first Ever heard of the first Iraq war.

How many of the terrorists were Iraqi? Zero?

Not to mention, we didn't even Invade Iraq in the war, we just protected Kuwait.

And, the Gulf war was supported pretty unanimously by the Middle east, because they were all at risk of Iraq invading them for thier oil or something else like that.

At 7/24/05 02:17 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Culture in America is a Canadian playing your all American hero who can stop a terrorist in the time it takes most people to make a sandwhich (ie the show 24 with Kieffer Sutherland).

We sometimes like to adopt some of your better citizens and give them a chance at a real life.

It's called humanitarianism.

At 7/24/05 07:31 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Looks like Blair is saying that its ok to kill a few innocent people to save the lives of others. What happens if the number of innocent people kille dby over-zelous cops outnumbers the number lost in the bombing, what then?

I would assume that would be the time you would change the policy.

At 7/24/05 06:35 PM, Proteas wrote: - Darwin's theory is still a theory, not a scientific law who's truth can't be denied. Until it is a scientific law, your not going to have a lot of basic fundamentalists believing in the matter.

Newtons laws of physics were proven thoroughly wrong several times. Most notably in 1905.

And Evolution can never really become a law, not neccesarily because it can't be experimented, but because its not in the right format. A law states an action and a reaction, but Evolution is more of a history lesson.

Suicide by police?

It's more common than you would think actually.

At 7/24/05 05:26 AM, misterninja wrote: WWI breaking out into peace wouldn't have really been that bad. Germany would have been better off and hitler wouldn't have likely risen to power due to germany being in better shape.

thats more of a butterfly effect kind of thing tho, eh?

It does seem entirely like the lopsided victory of WW1 was what caused most of the problems in this world.

However.. it's just as likely that if we had not gotten involved, the USSR would have grown unchecked and we would have seen a 'Freedom Fighters' like world.

At 7/24/05 08:48 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: Since when is Egypt a western country?

What does that have to do with anything? So now only western countries have terrorism? Or is it that they only need a reason to attack western countries?

I did. Who cares? It hasn't got anything to do with my point.

No it doesn't but that doesn't change the fact that it is lame.

Sure, when THEY attack YOU, it's cold blooded murder. The other way around it's okay, of course.

Because we attack combatants, they attack civilians. We actually try to prevent civilian casualties.

Besides the point that sending troops to Saudi Arabia could be a legitamite reason to hate the US, the keyword here is MAIN gripe. There are plenty of other way's the US pissed those people off.

It CANNOT be a legitimate reason to hate the US, espescially not even one that is good enough to BOMB the US. We sent troops to protect them from invasion, we were invited to Saudi Arabia. If they can't handle seeing women not walking around with thier faces covered that is there problem, not ours.

And, name the other ways. Really, go ahead and name them.

It has worked??? More than 20.000 Iraqi civillians got killed so far and you say it has worked?!

Do you have any idea how many bombs and missiles we dropped?? We launched 10,000 missiles alone. We decimated the Iraqi army which was already hiding inside the cities.

And at that, only 8,000 of those 20,000 were killed by US soldiers.

Perhaps, but you sure have a shitty aim. You tell the families of those killed Iraqi's that you did not "target" them. I'm sure they'll be very happy.

No we have perfect aim. There has never been a conquering of a country with so few casualties, much less a country whose entire budget was in the military.

Yeah, before 9/11 the US was a saint.

Can you name any acts of aggression? All they have is that we sent troops to protect Saudi Arabia, thier home country, and that we give Israel some money every year (which really is unlikely to be thier reason, everyone who wasn't around Israel has consitantly ignored the palestinians).

Maybe, but would you like those spies and covert ops to be treated like they do with people in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Graib?

I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't complain. It's only fair really, I have no doubt when a spy gets caught in Russia or Iran or anywhere else they get treated MUCH worse (probably killed).

And what do you think the cause of this "poverty, poor living conditions and oppressions" is? Iraq, for example, was a relativaly well off country before the US barged in. The living conditions of the Iraqi's are pure shit now and the way they see it, they are being oppressed by the US.

Iraq was never well off. Some rich people in Bahgdad were. You fail to realize that simply because there is oil does not mean that everyone is rich. The money gets concentrated amoung a select few.

And at that, none of that 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis, nor are any of the Madrid bombers or the London bombers.

Sure, when my point of view doesn't agree with yours, it's sad. I can burst into tears any second now.

It's not just about disagreeing, it's that you would exploit the suffering of others in order to justify your point of view, even though you held that point of view long before 9/11.