# Wikileaks: Obama gave Russia British nuclear secrets



## Megaharrison (Feb 4, 2011)

> WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets
> 
> The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain?s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
> 
> ...





Special relationshiplol.


----------



## Glued (Feb 4, 2011)

Wow, just...wow.


----------



## Altron (Feb 4, 2011)

Yes what a great idea, betraying your long time ally and friend just to make Russia sign a piece of paper.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 4, 2011)




----------



## hazashi (Feb 4, 2011)

uh-oh


----------



## iander (Feb 4, 2011)

They shouldn't be keeping the amount of weapons they have a secret anyway.  No country should be.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 4, 2011)

^Maybe in Candyland, which is for all ages.
*In b4 ad hominem*

I guess this is that transparency we've been hearing about.  START treaty was no game.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Feb 4, 2011)

Not even sure of how to respond to this.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Feb 4, 2011)

Dick Move.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Feb 4, 2011)

Just wondering, how important was it for Russia to sign the treaty?


----------



## Juno (Feb 4, 2011)

Battered country shelter, here we come.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 4, 2011)

Mist Puppet said:


> Just wondering, how important was it for Russia to sign the treaty?



Fairly.  From my understanding Poland was already pissed that we backed out of that umbrella thing and South Ossetia/Georgia for the U.S. not getting involved.


----------



## αce (Feb 4, 2011)

Obama could personally walk into Europe, nab the queen and hand her over to Russia and at the end of the day the British would still be licking the sweat dripping off of Obama's ballsack.


----------



## Minatomaru (Feb 4, 2011)

.


----------



## Time Expired (Feb 4, 2011)

what the hell.  



> Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.



It's okay little guy, size doesn't matter


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 4, 2011)

Don't act surprised, this shit has been happening for centuries, we just didn't have wikileaks back then.


----------



## Raiden (Feb 4, 2011)

Are you serious ? He was probably pursuaded by the fact that it was done in the past. And Clinton people. 

But I agree with Mider T. Basically all this shows is that START is just...dumb.


----------



## nagatopwnsall (Feb 4, 2011)

What do you expect? This is obama we are talking about. He sent the queen fucking DVDS as a gift...and they would not even work properly because of the area codes.

Jesus christ...obama is possibly the worst thing to happen to the democrat party since carter. God...i still remember 08...remember 08? When everyone was obama-crazy. He was the savior he would make the seas rise and fall!! God.....obama...


----------



## Velocity (Feb 4, 2011)

Meh. You really think nuclear tech is our trump card? Fuck no. Between the Doctor and Bond, anyone who crosses us is basically fucked.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Feb 4, 2011)

can't say i'm bothered one bit


----------



## Ceria (Feb 4, 2011)

bama why


----------



## ExoSkel (Feb 4, 2011)

Obama is clearly a not fan of the British nation.


----------



## Final Giku Tenshou (Feb 4, 2011)

inb4 Nothing happens because an agreement is made by a quick thinking action from Obama who smooth talks his way through this just like he does everything else.


----------



## Kael Hyun (Feb 4, 2011)

I knew something was wrong the second when they sent back the bust of Churchill back


----------



## amazingfunksta (Feb 4, 2011)

Well, if it's any consolation to the Brits here. 

Most of the American people don't approve... 

Dick move man... Dick move.


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Feb 4, 2011)

Isn't it well known that he hates Britain?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Feb 4, 2011)

Somewhat of a dick move, but does this really matter from a practical sense? Whether Britain has 20 or 200 nuclear warheads, nobody is going to fuck with them. The Cold War is over. 

If some British person could explain to me why it's critical that they not know the exact number over a fairly accurate estimate, that would be great. I can understand feeling betrayed, though, being used as a bargaining chip like that. 



> • America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
> 
> • Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.


----------



## hehey (Feb 4, 2011)

wow, i am disapoint Obama.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 4, 2011)

I always knew he'd get us all killed.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 4, 2011)

> • Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.



Is this even a surprise to anyone?

You know what Obama? No tea or scones for you


----------



## Griever (Feb 4, 2011)

Well, that's fuckin' great... But i expected no less of Obama


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Feb 4, 2011)

There no Leak that Obama cannot plug no depth he will not lower himself to to ruin any credibility the US has left by making deals with Russia and The Middle East.

What happened to Bomb first ask questions later guess that policy changed after 45.


----------



## nagatopwnsall (Feb 4, 2011)

Special relationship? 

obama:"fuck those limeys!"


----------



## Ceria (Feb 4, 2011)

I thought we elected a black president, obama's acting like a weak minded white guy...


----------



## nagatopwnsall (Feb 4, 2011)

Ceria said:


> I thought we elected a black president, obama's acting like a weak minded white guy...



Really? REALLY? Weak minded white guys huh....well us 'weak minded white guys' could start gettin all gangsta and hard again..would you like that? Hitler was the hardest mothafucka around.

In all seriousness....that was pretty racist what you said. Thats coo though....


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Feb 4, 2011)

Maybe Obama is a closet Romulan from Romulus


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Feb 4, 2011)

iander said:


> They shouldn't be keeping the amount of weapons they have a secret anyway.  No country should be.



Countries and various organisations in general do like to keep secrets so they have an edge or don't have their weakness exposed to rivals/potential threats. Whether this is ethical is another issue but certainly not a stupid move to keep such secrets.

Still dick move.


----------



## hehey (Feb 4, 2011)

It was dishonorable plain and simple.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Feb 4, 2011)

next , tell russia how many nukes isreal has, lol


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 4, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Special relationshiplol.



England has a special relationship with Republican America.  I'd think foreign nations would have learned by now.  Never trust an America governed by a Democrat.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 4, 2011)

I do not know what to say......



fieryfalcon said:


> England has a special relationship with Republican America.  I'd think foreign nations would have learned by now.  Never trust an America governed by a Democrat.



WHOA WHOA WHOA


I do not agree with what Obama did...but seriously?


A republican would be better off?


The Patriot Act and invading another country based on Bush's lie were also bad!

Not to mention how Republicans want to push their "Christian" right wing agenda when it comes to women's choices on pregnancy and restricting gay rights.  And even cutting back social programs.


The Bush administration also disrespected Europe just because they gave criticism to its "fake" war on terror in Iraq.  Especially, the French.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 5, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> next , tell russia how many nukes isreal has, lol



Eh, unlike the British our nuclear missiles weren't constructed in the U.S. and we don't share much nuclear info with the Americans, so they couldn't even if they wanted. That being said it's fairly easily to estimate how many supposed nuclear warheads Israel has if it indeed does possess them.

Anyway to those talking about a lack of real damage here. Yes, a lack of material damage is present. However it's more of a matter of diplomatic damage and principle, as the U.S. should not be secretly giving information regarding the defense capabilities of its core allies to rival nations. It's not only simply a dick move to treat the closest American ally like this, it's also damaging to U.S. image.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> I do not know what to say......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whatever you think of the Patriot Act it doesn't involve selling out an ally's nuclear secrets.  Iraq was invaded for a pattern of treaty violations and acts of war.  Bush accurately laid out the case for the Iraqi war based on the best information we had at the time.  That some of it wasn't true doesn't magically transform the basis of the war into a 'lie.'  Lies are intentional falsehoods.

The rest of your complaints also have nothing to do with selling out an ally.  The U.S. has repeatedly sold out allies when led by Democrats.  Ngo Dinh Diem under Kennedy.  All of Vietnam at the hands of the Democrat Congress a few years later (Ford wanted to go back in, but the Congress wouldn't allow it).  The Shah of Iran under Carter.  Chiang Kai-shek under Truman.  

If you're a foreign ally of the U.S. don't rely on a Democrats.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 5, 2011)

Clinton helped Egypt and Israel find some peace terms.....


And really?  Does not change the fact that Bush lied about it and how the rest of world look at US with even much lower approval.


Are you serious about the Vietnam thing?  You do realize that a Republican president (Nixon) promised to get out of Vietnam if he was elected!

It was not just a "Democratic Congress"....He willingly went along with it.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 5, 2011)

Wikileaks-damaging World Peace just for the lulz.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Clinton helped Egypt and Israel find some peace terms.....
> 
> 
> And really?  Does not change the fact that Bush lied about it and how the rest of world look at US with even much lower approval.



Well obviously Democrats don't sell everyone out just for kicks.  They do it when they think it will benefit them.  By the way, how is that Egypt-Israel peace looking right now?  

I just explained that Bush didn't lie.  This Bush lied line is for the intellectually lazy.  Anyone who mouths it isn't serious about the issues.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 5, 2011)

Bush did lie about the weapons of mass destruction !


And US image abroad suffer because of it.


Now, you are just making up excuses.




I like Obama and I am not even making an excuse for this parcticular stunt because I do disapprove of it.


----------



## hcheng02 (Feb 5, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> *Clinton *helped Egypt and Israel find some peace terms.....
> 
> 
> And really?  Does not change the fact that Bush lied about it and how the rest of world look at US with even much lower approval.



Are you sure you're not talking about Carter? Because that was when the 1979 Peace Deal was signed between Egypt and Israel - which might not hold if Mubarak falls.

Anyway, this looks like a pretty stupid move by Obama. Honestly, I can't help but agree wit the conservatives who say that Obama is doing a fool's errand when he sells out longstanding allies like Britain and Israel to try and make friends with borderline hostile countries like Russia and the Arab countries. Its like those movies where a nerdy girl tries to join the "in crowd" by abandoning her old friends only to lose her friends and gain nothing but scorn for her efforts.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 5, 2011)

I was going by when Clinton overlook the talks between Israel and Egypt.


I thought he did play a small part of it because he was in a picture between the two leaders at the time as they shook hands and Clinton stood between them smiling.

Or am I confusing another country's relationship with Israel?


----------



## Dionysus (Feb 5, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Wikileaks-damaging World Peace just for the lulz.


Or you could blame the US government for leaking information about its ally's defence capabilities.

If the US's relations with the UK is damaged because of this, I would have to blame the US government (specifically the Obama admin?). Were I a citizen of the UK, I'd be rather glad to have this leak; politicians now have to reevaluate the relationship should the electorate not like the news.

"But Marge, I honestly thought you wouldn't find out!"


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Feb 5, 2011)

Well I would I have to say that I am deeply embarrassed about what Obama has done. My approval rating is certainly going to need a re-evaluation. As a citizen, I can only apologize to the citizens of the United Kingdom. I really hope this does not strain our countries relationship.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Bush did lie about the weapons of mass destruction !
> 
> 
> And US image abroad suffer because of it.
> ...



It isn't an excuse at all.  Show one shred of evidence that Bush knew there were no WMD when he made his claim, a claim which, by the way, was a widely held belief at the time and had been for years.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> It isn't an excuse at all.  Show one shred of evidence that Bush knew there were no WMD when he made his claim, a claim which, by the way, was a widely held belief at the time and had been for years.



I believe the burden of proof is on you're camp. I would ask you to prove Bush really did genuinely believe there to be WMD's in Iraq, and that it was his pretext for declaring War. I don't think you can. Just as well, I don't think someone can disprove it. The argument is logically flawed.


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

> *Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain* will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.



It doesnt sound like we gave them the info on Britain's nukes just the ones we gave to them. Whoopideedoo cause if Britain ever needs to use them the US and Russia is going to obliterate everyone and their mother a thousand times over so it wont matter anyways.



> I believe the burden of proof is on you're camp. I would ask you to prove Bush really did genuinely believe there to be WMD's in Iraq, and that it was his pretext for declaring War. I don't think you can. Just as well, I don't think someone can disprove it. The argument is logically flawed.



The actual burden of truth is actually on you since Bush can just claim the intel at the time was saying there were WMDs at the time. So unless you can prove at that time Bush knew he was being fed bullshit information Bush was not lying.


----------



## Tkae (Feb 5, 2011)




----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

Ichi Sagato said:


> I believe the burden of proof is on you're camp. I would ask you to prove Bush really did genuinely believe there to be WMD's in Iraq, and that it was his pretext for declaring War. I don't think you can. Just as well, I don't think someone can disprove it. The argument is logically flawed.



The burden of proof always rests with the party making the allegation.  Bush acted consistently with over a decade of American policy and the collective knowledge base available at the time which included other nation's and Saddam's own claims.

That's why I say anyone who repeats this "Bush lied" trope isn't serious.  They're just lazy bomb throwers.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2011)

We told them how many we gave them? That sounds kind of minuscule when you consider they could make more something. Once again Wikileaks takes what would probably be consider common wheeling and dealing and exposes it to make someone look bad and then people gobble it up and even get into stupid partisan fights over politics. 

And the Republicans? Friends of the British? They're the ones always talking about the disgrace that is British life these days, the Republicans are a fucking joke in Britain. 

BTW, what happened to there being on thread for this wikileaks garbage so it didn't clog up the front page?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 5, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> BTW, what happened to there being on thread for this wikileaks garbage so it didn't clog up the front page?



Oh come on, Wikileaks is past their "wow" phase. The newer articles won't be in enough quantity to clog up anything.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Oh come on, Wikileaks is past their "wow" phase. The newer articles won't be in enough quantity to clog up anything.


Doubtful, they're probably holding onto the best for last, that's how attention whores work.


----------



## emROARS (Feb 5, 2011)

Lyra said:


> Meh. You really think nuclear tech is our trump card? Fuck no. Between the Doctor and Bond, anyone who crosses us is basically fucked.



Cause when there's something wrong, the Doctor puts it right,
He always stands up for us and on him we can rely.



What has America got? Area 51? Like that'll stop him.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> If you're a foreign ally of the U.S. don't rely on a Democrats.


Allow me to disagree. Bush was an absolute dick to his allies, and overtly. He lied about the WMDs to force them into his own personal war. When France refused, a smear campaign was launched across the US. I don't think this is going to be forgotten any time soon by the French population.


			
				fieryfalcon said:
			
		

> The burden of proof always rests with the party making the allegation.


That would be you.



			
				Razgriez said:
			
		

> The actual burden of truth is actually on you since Bush can just claim the intel at the time was saying there were WMDs at the time. So unless you can prove at that time Bush knew he was being fed bullshit information Bush was not lying.


That some Americans still believe all of this was just a honest mistake... just shows how pathetically naive partisanship can make you.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Feb 5, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Eh, unlike the British our nuclear missiles weren't constructed in the U.S. and we don't share much nuclear info with the Americans, so they couldn't even if they wanted. That being said it's fairly easily to estimate how many supposed nuclear warheads Israel has if it indeed does possess them.
> 
> Anyway to those talking about a lack of real damage here. Yes, a lack of material damage is present. However it's more of a matter of diplomatic damage and principle, as the U.S. should not be secretly giving information regarding the defense capabilities of its core allies to rival nations. It's not only simply a dick move to treat the closest American ally like this, it's also damaging to U.S. image.



you're anti-american bra, obama does what's right for our country not for anyone else.  if it's so damaging, don't talk about it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> you're anti-american bra, obama does what's right for our country not for anyone else.  if it's so damaging, don't talk about it.


Suddenly you're mister america


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

> That some Americans still believe all of this was just a honest mistake... just shows how pathetically naive partisanship can make you.



Just because you dont like the man doesnt necessarily mean he was a lying bastard.

MH is Israeli. He can be anti-American all he wants.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Feb 5, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Suddenly you're mister america



it's ok to be proud when there's something to be proud of .  imo alot of americans felt at their lowest during the bush years, when he tarnished our international reputation and made plenty of people feel part of a criminal war.  obama's been cleaning that up, so it's not to be shitted on


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> it's ok to be proud when there's something to be proud of .  imo alot of americans felt at their lowest during the bush years, when he tarnished our international reputation and made plenty of people feel part of a criminal war.  obama's been cleaning that up, so it's not to be shitted on



Obama knows that we cant just leave it either. While he said the war has ended we still keep a sizable force in Iraq to prevent it from going to the shitter and turning into a massive terrorist breeding ground many times worse then it is now.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Feb 5, 2011)

It was definitely a dick move.....but he did it with a good intention. And its not like the British are that important anymore, really. Who is going to attack them? They have no contact enemies around AND are in the Nato, which is the strongest military organization in the world. And there won?t be a nuclear war, especially not in Europe. Its kind of dust in the eyes to mock about that incident....if it somehow makes more stability or disarmament possible, then hell, I?m for it.

Later on, the British will say "But Iran can hit us with nuclear rockets so we need sum secrets to scare them  "


----------



## impersonal (Feb 5, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> you're anti-american bra, obama does what's right for our country not for anyone else.  if it's so damaging, don't talk about it.



He's not anti-American; he's just not American. Non-Americans tend to care about the shit that the US does to the rest of the world, you know, supporting dictatorship and such, if it suits their interest.

Which is not to say that the US is worse than other countries. It's just that your comment was idiotic.


			
				Ragriez said:
			
		

> Just because you dont like the man doesnt necessarily mean he was a lying bastard.


I don't really care whether he outright lied, or pressured US-intelligence to go on a one-sided investigation, or just choose to "rhetorically improve" mere suspicions.



In the end it's all the same.


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> He's not anti-American; he's just not American. Non-Americans tend to care about the shit that the US does to the rest of the world, you know, supporting dictatorship and such.



Oh dont give us that shit.

Europe ran the world until it imploded on itself in WW2 running all sorts of puppet governments some being dictatorships themselves.

You then couldnt afford to hold onto these territories in the past so you cut your losses and moved out. If you guys still had the ability you would of held onto them. Not like it matters anymore you can just ride the benefits American imperialism has provided to your nations.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Oh dont give us that shit.
> 
> Europe ran the world until it imploded on itself in WW2 running all sorts of puppet governments some being dictatorships themselves.
> 
> You then couldnt afford to hold onto these territories in the past so you cut your losses and moved out. If you guys still had the ability you would of held onto them. Not like it matters anymore you can just ride the benefits American imperialism has provided to your nations.



We have better standards of human rights now, as seen throughout society, for example in mainstream politics racism is not acceptable whereas in the time of European Empires it was acceptable. I don't think any of the European colonial powers of the past want their empires back due to the gact that it's be too much trouble and people wouldn't accept it.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Oh dont give us that shit.
> 
> Europe ran the world until it imploded on itself in WW2 running all sorts of puppet governments some being dictatorships themselves.
> 
> You then couldnt afford to hold onto these territories in the past so you cut your losses and moved out. If you guys still had the ability you would of held onto them. Not like it matters anymore you can just ride the benefits American imperialism has provided to your nations.



I'm not saying today's France is much better than today's USA. (that would probably be the case for the UK though, and it's a certainty for Germany or nordic countries).

I'm saying that when the US does crap, people are not going to like them for it. FapperWocky apparently does not understand that. All there is to it.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 5, 2011)

The road to diplomacy is often covered with deceit and treachery.

In the foreseable future, Nukes are pretty useless deterents for Western democracies anyway.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> The road to diplomacy is often covered with deceit and treachery.
> 
> In the foreseable future, Nukes are pretty useless deterents for Western democracies anyway.


The road to diplomacy is paved with critical failures.


----------



## Squall Leonhart (Feb 5, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> you're anti-american bra, obama does what's right for our country not for anyone else.  if it's so damaging, don't talk about it.



OBAMA - One Big Ass Mistake America.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Allow me to disagree. Bush was an absolute dick to his allies, and overtly. He lied about the WMDs to force them into his own personal war. When France refused, a smear campaign was launched across the US. I don't think this is going to be forgotten any time soon by the French population.



What are you talking about?  Which allies did Bush treat poorly?  When did he lie, i.e., knowingly say falsehoods?  When did he smear the French?  The American people were outraged that the French wouldn't support us.  It is we who won't be forgetting their trechery any time soon.



> That would be you.



No, the people making the allegations are the people claiming Bush lied.  They have the burden.



> That some Americans still believe all of this was just a honest mistake... just shows how pathetically naive partisanship can make you.



No, it just shows that people who are serious about the issues realize that all the evidence points toward a completely understandable and expected mistake.  We want our officials to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting American interests.  The Iraq war was justified with or without WMD.  WMD just made the urgency greater.

Like I said, you and people like you are completely unserious and unfit to contribute to the dialogue on international affairs.  Your simplistic worldview is going to wreck the international order and sink the West as a major power center.


----------



## Velocity (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Oh dont give us that shit.
> 
> Europe ran the world until it imploded on itself in WW2 running all sorts of puppet governments some being dictatorships themselves.
> 
> You then couldnt afford to hold onto these territories in the past so you cut your losses and moved out. If you guys still had the ability you would of held onto them. Not like it matters anymore you can just ride the benefits American imperialism has provided to your nations.



Ahahaha! Oh, this is priceless... Did you forget America exists because we allowed it, because it's our people that you descend from? Did you forget that without the Industrial Revolution that Britain started, America would still be a backwater shithole for people who want to run from the law? You think just because you've been there for a few centuries that you can forget that it's our language you use? That it's because of us that you're even there? That, when it boils down to it, you're not American - you're British and European runaways that deserted your countries for money and land?

We made a few mistakes, sure, who doesn't? But you think America has done more for the world than the world has done for America? Don't give me that bullshit... You owe us your very existence, yet this is how you repay us? How ungrateful can you get?


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

I doubt that this is even that damaging, but fucking lol at getting caught in the act. The risk was not worth the reward, considering START was pointless anyway.

Honestly, this made me more  than anything:



> • America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
> 
> • Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 5, 2011)

This doesn't seem like a big deal to me



> ... but the *US agreed to hand over the serial numbers *of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
> 
> 
> ?This appears to be significant because while the *UK has announced how many missiles it possesses*, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.?



So this is about the U.S. giving out information that Britain has already stated publically. 

Why is this such a big deal,


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

Lyra said:


> Ahahaha! Oh, this is priceless... Did you forget America exists because we allowed it, because it's our people that you descend from? Did you forget that without the Industrial Revolution that Britain started, America would still be a backwater shithole for people who want to run from the law? You think just because you've been there for a few centuries that you can forget that it's our language you use? That it's because of us that you're even there? That, when it boils down to it, you're not American - you're British and European runaways that deserted your countries for money and land?
> 
> We made a few mistakes, sure, who doesn't? But you think America has done more for the world than the world has done for America? Don't give me that bullshit... You owe us your very existence, yet this is how you repay us? How ungrateful can you get?



We were driven out by your tyranny.  We're European no doubt, but we're the best part of Europe, the part that was bold, independent, and innovative.  The dregs you cast out of your society has become the greatest nation in the history of the world.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Feb 5, 2011)

Pretty fucked up, man.

And considering how up in arms the US was about Assange releasing military secrets, it's kind of hypocrticial for them to turn around months later and start handing out military secrets of their ally nations for their own selfish gain.



fieryfalcon said:


> We were driven out by your tyranny.  We're European no doubt, but we're the best part of Europe, the part that was bold, independent, and innovative.  The dregs you cast out of your society has become *the greatest nation in the history of the world.*



Hardly. Get over yourself, kid.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> This doesn't seem like a big deal to me
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Britain could have been lying, this confirms the number to the Russians.

It's not that much of a big deal really, but in the end, it still hurts and undermines the US image and credibility for a portrayed "betrayal of trust". All this to make Russia sign a pointless nuclear treaty anyway, considering START is going nowhere.

Was it really worth the risk? It just reeks of incompetence to me.


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

Lyra said:


> Ahahaha! Oh, this is priceless... Did you forget America exists because we allowed it, because it's our people that you descend from? Did you forget that without the Industrial Revolution that Britain started, America would still be a backwater shithole for people who want to run from the law? You think just because you've been there for a few centuries that you can forget that it's our language you use? That it's because of us that you're even there? That, when it boils down to it, you're not American - you're British and European runaways that deserted your countries for money and land?
> 
> We made a few mistakes, sure, who doesn't? But you think America has done more for the world than the world has done for America? Don't give me that bullshit... You owe us your very existence, yet this is how you repay us? How ungrateful can you get?



What the flying fuck is this shit?

You can go take your flame bait and shove it up your ass!


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

Lyra said:


> Ahahaha! Oh, this is priceless... Did you forget America exists because we allowed it, because it's our people that you descend from? Did you forget that without the Industrial Revolution that Britain started, America would still be a backwater shithole for people who want to run from the law? You think just because you've been there for a few centuries that you can forget that it's our language you use? That it's because of us that you're even there? That, when it boils down to it, you're not American - you're British and European runaways that deserted your countries for money and land?
> 
> We made a few mistakes, sure, who doesn't? But you think America has done more for the world than the world has done for America? Don't give me that bullshit... You owe us your very existence, yet this is how you repay us? How ungrateful can you get?





fieryfalcon said:


> We were driven out by your tyranny.  We're European no doubt, but we're the best part of Europe, the part that was bold, independent, and innovative.  The dregs you cast out of your society has become the greatest nation in the history of the world.





How have you two not already learnt how utterly pointless nationalism is already?


----------



## strongarm85 (Feb 5, 2011)

Its no secret that Obama hate Great Brittan. His dad was allegedly tortured by the british after being arrested as a spy.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 5, 2011)

Han Solo said:


> Britain could have been lying, this confirms the number to the Russians.
> 
> It's not that much of a big deal really, but in the end, it still hurts and undermines the US image and credibility for a portrayed "betrayal of trust". All this to make Russia sign a pointless nuclear treaty anyway, considering START is going nowhere.
> 
> Was it really worth the risk? It just reeks of incompetence to me.



The U.K. announcements of nuclear weapons is done publically not just for other countries but also for it's own people. 

If UK HAS been lying about it's nuclear weapons then their lying is MORE of a betrayal then the U.S. releasing that they are lying!


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Feb 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> The U.K. announcements of nuclear weapons is done publically not just for other countries but also for it's own people.
> 
> If UK HAS been lying about it's nuclear weapons then their lying is MORE of a betrayal then the U.S. releasing that they are lying!



Are you pro or anti wikileaks?


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

Han Solo said:


> How have you two not already learnt how utterly pointless nationalism is already?



Lyra is just trying to incite chaos with that response. We already fought Great Britain in the past and won our freedom. We owe them nothing especially after the assistance we provided in WW2.

Lyra. Great Britain is our bitch now.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> The U.K. announcements of nuclear weapons is done publically not just for other countries but also for it's own people.
> 
> If UK HAS been lying about it's nuclear weapons then their lying is MORE of a betrayal then the U.S. releasing that they are lying!



How so? Even if Britain was lying, the US knew the actual number anyway, and I'd assume other close allies like France and Germany may have also been told.

Any lies Britain may have told were to it's public and it's potential enemies. And for all we know, Britain could have been telling the truth anyway. But we still wouldn't want the Russians to know.



Razgriez said:


> Lyra is just trying to incite chaos with that response. We already fought Great Britain in the past and won our freedom. We owe them nothing especially after the assistance we provided in WW2.
> 
> Lyra. Great Britain is our bitch now.



From historical responses, fieryfalcon comes off far worse to me than Lyra, but eh, whatever.

I suppose your trying to troll here aswell?


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

strongarm85 said:


> Its no secret that Obama hate Great Brittan. His dad was allegedly tortured by the british after being arrested as a spy.



If he hated the UK he'd have tried to kick us out of the UNSC, NATO and other organisations.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Lyra is just trying to incite chaos with that response. We already fought Great Britain in the past and won our freedom. We owe them nothing especially after the assistance we provided in WW2.
> 
> Lyra. Great Britain is our bitch now.



Comments like these make me laugh.


----------



## Velocity (Feb 5, 2011)

Han Solo said:


> How have you two not already learnt how utterly pointless nationalism is already?



I know how pointless nationalism is - but I hate it when people ignore history and act like America just appeared out of nowhere and got where it is today with no help from anyone. It's ridiculous...


----------



## Griever (Feb 5, 2011)

iander said:


> They shouldn't be keeping the amount of weapons they have a secret anyway.  No country should be.



Why would you say this?? 

A country keeping their arensal a secret from the rest of the world is nothing short of good strategy.


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

Lyra said:


> I know how pointless nationalism is - but I hate it when people ignore history and act like America just appeared out of nowhere and got where it is today with no help from anyone. It's ridiculous...



There was a time before America? Oh thats right thats when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and only Texas existed.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

Lyra said:


> I know how pointless nationalism is - but I hate it when people ignore history and act like America just appeared out of nowhere and got where it is today with no help from anyone. It's ridiculous...



People do that with Britain alot aswell. It baffles me, considering our name comes from the Romans, and that England is still often called Anglo, when that's a Germanic name.

We've been invaded by the Celts, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans, and a few others aswell. In fact, the Balto-Slavic culture is the only European culture to not invade Britain at some point IIRC.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:
			
		

> Like I said, you and people like you are completely unserious and unfit to contribute to the dialogue on international affairs. *Your simplistic worldview* (...)





fieryfalcon said:


> We were driven out by your tyranny.  We're European no doubt, but we're the best part of Europe, the part that was bold, independent, and innovative.  The dregs you cast out of your society has become *the greatest nation in the history of the world*.



Seriously...


			
				fieryfalcon said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? Which allies did Bush treat poorly? When did he lie, i.e., knowingly say falsehoods? When did he smear the French? The American people were outraged that the French wouldn't support us. It is we who won't be forgetting their trechery any time soon.


It is well known that Powell's speach to the UN was a load of bullshit, and for a large part, knowingly so.

As for the French and Iraq, they were right all along.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Seriously...



Typical world power mentality, whilst stupid he isn't 100% to blame.


----------



## Nemesis (Feb 5, 2011)

Han Solo said:


> We've been invaded by the Celts, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans, and a few others aswell. In fact, the Balto-Slavic culture is the only European culture to not invade Britain at some point IIRC.



Well actually no we were not invaded by the Celts.  We intereacted with them BUT the term Celtic to use pre roman Britains (and then on English people of these islands) didn't come about till the 1700s due to anti english reasonings.


----------



## Juno (Feb 5, 2011)

America, your chocolate tastes like grit and you talk too loudly when abroad.

Respond.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

Juno said:


> America, your chocolate tastes like grit and you talk too loudly when abroad.
> 
> Respond.



Their toilet bowls also have way too much water in them compared to the more shallow and superior European toilets.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Juno said:


> America, your chocolate tastes like grit and you talk too loudly when abroad.
> 
> Respond.



English Breakfast is for ponces, the London Broil is the worst way to cook a piece of beef, notice how most of the world drives on the right side of the road, your dental plan was pure shit for decades running, and when we feel like spelling out words we don't need extra letters to feel important am I right "programme?"


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> English Breakfast is for ponces, the London Broil is the worst way to cook a piece of beef, notice how most of the world drives on the right side of the road, your dental plan was pure shit for decades running, and when we feel like spelling out words we don't need extra letters to feel important am I right "programme?"



You have mainstream media that tells people to go out and shoot politicians with viewpoints they disagree with, that and people take the Republicans seriously.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael, you're supposed to keep it funny, otherwise we'd go straight to "Americans are fat", which isn't all that interesting.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Mael, you're supposed to keep it funny, otherwise we'd go straight to "Americans are fat", which isn't all that interesting.



I'm sorry...I basically go either 1 or 10.

Not really good at that middle-of-the-road funny thing. 

The Mighty Boosh is fucking weird.  There.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Mael, you're supposed to keep it funny, otherwise we'd go straight to "Americans are fat", which isn't all that interesting.



Actually, that mantle in now owned by the good Mexican people, the most obese in the world.


----------



## Juno (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> English Breakfast is for ponces, the London Broil is the worst way to cook a piece of beef, notice how most of the world drives on the right side of the road, your dental plan was pure shit for decades running, and when we feel like spelling out words we don't need extra letters to feel important am I right "programme?"



I'll have you know a London Broil is the ONLY way to remove all the flavour and nutrients from a piece of beef prior to eating, and we drive on the left because that was how the knights of old jousted and if you're going to roll down the window and drive at someone with a pointed stick, you're not going to hold it in your _left _hand, are you?

And our dental plan is excellent. Where else in the world will you find good old traditional procedures like tying your tooth to a door handle still in effect?


----------



## Aokiji (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> English Breakfast is for ponces, the London Broil is the worst way to cook a piece of beef, notice how most of the world drives on the right side of the road, *your dental plan was pure shit for decades running,* and when we feel like spelling out words we don't need extra letters to feel important am I right "programme?"



That's a myth I think that was brought up because Brits don't give much of a fuck about straight teeth.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Juno said:


> I'll have you know a London Broil is the ONLY way to remove all the flavour and nutrients from a piece of beef prior to eating, and we drive on the left because that was how the knights of old jousted and if you're going to roll down the window and drive at someone with a pointed stick, you're not going to hold it in your _left _hand, are you?
> 
> And our dental plan is excellent. Where else in the world will you find good old traditional procedures like tying your tooth to a door handle still in effect?



We'd hold it left because we wanna be awesome on BOTH sides.  The left arm is often overlooked...but we here in the US cared. 

Feh...door handle...we have a running car.


----------



## Velocity (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> English Breakfast is for ponces, the London Broil is the worst way to cook a piece of beef, notice how most of the world drives on the right side of the road, your dental plan was pure shit for decades running, and when we feel like spelling out words we don't need extra letters to feel important am I right "programme?"



I should point out those extra letters were there before you cut them out, so they're not extra at all - does getting rid of those letters make it easier for you guys to graduate? You've got to be morons to call a game where you run with a pig's stomach in your hands "football", so I wouldn't be surprised at all if you had to simplify spelling to get all those scholarships you can't get to college without.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Lyra said:


> I should point out those extra letters were there before you cut them out, so they're not extra at all - does getting rid of those letters make it easier for you guys to graduate? You've got to be morons to call a game where you run with a pig's stomach in your hands "football", so I wouldn't be surprised at all if you had to simplify spelling to get all those scholarships you can't get to college without.



Well we figured the footballOlympic diving was a bit too pretentious so our leathery hand egg suited us just fine.  All you've got above is rugby and even then your criminal Aussie/New Zealander cousins do better.

We just learned to simplify, sonny.  Simplification =/= stupefication.  Unnecessary extra letters are unnecessary.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

Lyra said:


> I should point out those extra letters were there before you cut them out, so they're not extra at all - does getting rid of those letters make it easier for you guys to graduate? You've got to be morons to call a game where you run with a pig's stomach in your hands "football", so I wouldn't be surprised at all if you had to simplify spelling to get all those scholarships you can't get to college without.



In all fairness, rugby is a type of football as well and they originated about the same time so that point is null and void. At the end of the day they're pretty good sports, NFL has too many adverts and Association Football has too much diving and thuggery.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 5, 2011)

Juno said:


> if you're going to roll down the window and drive at someone with a pointed stick, you're not going to hold it in your _left _hand, are you?



Excellent point.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Rob said:


> Excellent point.



See, we here in America are so reckless anyway, we practice on both sides.  You come hither for a challenge, prepare for a propah stompin'.



Besides, our cheeseburger-induced fat shield makes our armor all the thicker.


----------



## Raiden (Feb 5, 2011)

Squall Leonhart said:


> OBAMA - One Big Ass Mistake America.



That was pretty good .

Anyway, I agree with the posters who said that this won't be too damaging. But I don't think this is the change Obama promised. In all seriousness, he said he resort to stuff like this. This is a fundamental bend in policy for some other country...: /.


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

Dunno about you guys but this thread is going places.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> See, we here in America are so reckless anyway, we practice on both sides.  You come hither for a challenge, prepare for a propah stompin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, our cheeseburger-induced fat shield makes our armor all the thicker.



We'll get the Daily Mail to run a hateful article on you and promptly chavs will brick your house.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

@fieryfalcon:

Shut the fuck up.  Your idiotic American exceptionalism only promotes the resounding ignorance of Americans unable to cope with the fact that mistakes were made and continue to be made.



Raiden said:


> That was pretty good .
> 
> Anyway, I agree with the posters who said that this won't be too damaging. But I don't think this is the change Obama promised. In all seriousness, he said he resort to stuff like this. This is a fundamental bend in policy for some other country...: /.



I gotta say I'm also a bit shocked, considering the monumental help the UK has done over all NATO allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, shoddy pretenses or not.

I mean if this is going to ensure Russia blocking more Chinese measures, then MAYBE, just MAYBE, I could legitimize this.  However, Russians aren't typically the trustworthy ones.



Squall Leonhart said:


> OBAMA - One Big Ass Mistake America.



And the alternative was better, kiddo?

Palin?



Emasculation Storm said:


> Hardly. Get over yourself, kid.



Bother not with him.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Dunno about you guys but this thread is going places.







Xyloxi said:


> We'll get the Daily Mail to run a hateful article on you and promptly chavs will brick your house.



Your subtlety astounds me, ork. 

Please...we've got Jersey douchebags, California OC brosephs, Crips, Bloods, and shit-kickers.  Your chavs are ineffective, Brit.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> We'll get the Daily Mail to run a hateful article on you and promptly chavs will brick your house.



Pfft, just send him to the outskirts of Glasgow.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Han Solo said:


> Pfft, just send him to the outskirts of Glasgow.



Would we be assailed by blue and white-painted hooligans wearing kilts?


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Your subtlety astounds me, ork.
> 
> Please...we've got Jersey douchebags, California OC brosephs, Crips, Bloods, and shit-kickers.  Your chavs are ineffective, Brit.



We have Scousers, Islamic terrorists with Yorkshire accents, Glaswegians, East Londoners, the RIRA and Simon Cowell.

Do your worst.


----------



## emROARS (Feb 5, 2011)

Omg you guys... 



Lyra said:


> Ahahaha! Oh, this is priceless... Did you forget America exists because we allowed it, because it's our people that you descend from? Did you forget that without the Industrial Revolution that Britain started, America would still be a backwater shithole for people who want to run from the law? You think just because you've been there for a few centuries that you can forget that it's our language you use? That it's because of us that you're even there? That, when it boils down to it, you're not American - you're British and European runaways that deserted your countries for money and land?
> 
> We made a few mistakes, sure, who doesn't? But you think America has done more for the world than the world has done for America? Don't give me that bullshit... You owe us your very existence, yet this is how you repay us? How ungrateful can you get?





fieryfalcon said:


> We were driven out by your tyranny.  We're European no doubt, but we're the best part of Europe, the part that was bold, independent, and innovative.  The dregs you cast out of your society has become the greatest nation in the history of the world.







Nemesis said:


> Well actually no we were not invaded by the Celts.  We intereacted with them BUT the term Celtic to use pre roman Britains (and then on English people of these islands) didn't come about till the 1700s *due to anti english reasonings.*



Thank you. At least someone knows that they used this term to seperate the English from the rest of the UK.


----------



## Juno (Feb 5, 2011)

We did have Piers Morgan, but then we tricked America into taking him. Finally: true revenge for the Boston tea party.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> We have Scousers, Islamic terrorists with Yorkshire accents, Glaswegians, East Londoners, the RIRA and Simon Cowell.
> 
> Do your worst.



RIRA =/= Brits

We have Islamic terrorists with JERSEY accents, Latin Kings, Mexicans, the Irish mob, redneck militias, and GLENN MOTHERFUCKING BECK.

Oh and our IPA > your IPA.

And Guinness is Irish, so keep your mitts off of their draught style.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 5, 2011)

Juno said:


> We did have Piers Morgan, but then we tricked America into taking him. Finally: true revenge for the Boston tea party.



I think we may have gone too far personally.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Rob said:


> I think we may have gone too far personally.



Nah we're ok...mostly because a good lot of us don't bother to know who he is.

Revenge for dumping your tea...not obtained.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Feb 5, 2011)

This is probably my favourite cafe thread.


----------



## Juno (Feb 5, 2011)

Rob said:


> I think we may have gone too far personally.



I admit when al qaeda called us out on our sub-human tactics my conscience kept me up at night sometimes, but overall I think we did the right thing.

They won't feel it yet, but in time... they will come to understand true pain.


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> RIRA =/= Brits
> 
> We have Islamic terrorists with JERSEY accents, Latin Kings, Mexicans, the Irish mob, redneck militias, and GLENN MOTHERFUCKING BECK.
> 
> ...



Our former VP shot his Lawyer in the FACE!

You dont want us going all Dick Cheney do ya?!


----------



## Juno (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Our former VP shot his Lawyer in the FACE!
> 
> You dont want us going all Dick Cheney do ya?!



Hard core, man, but our last PM had only one eye because he'd lost the first in a typical day at parliament, debating the opposition.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Would we be assailed by blue and white-painted hooligans wearing kilts?



Mostly you'll just be listening to people speak the same language as you yet understand them less than foreigners, which is quite the experience I must say.

Plus you might get the pleasure of seeing a real life Glasgow smile.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

Juno said:


> Hard core, man, but our last PM had only one eye because he'd lost the first in a typical day at parliament, debating the opposition.



Unfortunately, it has been toned down since the days of PM's actually having duels when they disagree, rather than being "sensible" and having a debate. Modern nancy boy idiots.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Feb 5, 2011)

i voted for obama _for this_.  UK kiss my asscot.


----------



## Darklyre (Feb 5, 2011)

Han Solo said:


> Unfortunately, it has been toned down since the days of PM's actually having duels when they disagree, rather than being "sensible" and having a debate. Modern nancy boy idiots.



Same here, though. Our Presidents used to fight duels for the hell of it, but now all we ever get is an errant shotgun blast to the face.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

Brb going to a certain South Atlantic territory owned by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not by Argentina.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> Brb going to a certain South Atlantic territory owned by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not by Argentina.



But what if they send they're 1 month of training 12 year old soldiers to take it over again?


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> Brb going to a certain South Atlantic territory owned by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not by Argentina.



Butthurt on the horizon?


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Butthurt on the horizon?



By butthurt you mean the Union Jack and the flag of the Falkland Islands flying over Stanley?


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> By butthurt you mean the Union Jack and the flag of the Falkland Islands flying over Stanley?



Not your butthurt, or UK butthurt, but a Fappin' butthurt.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Not your butthurt, or UK butthurt, but a Fappin' butthurt.



My post was intended to enrage him.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Feb 5, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> Brb going to a certain South Atlantic territory owned by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not by Argentina.



i'll go too and talk loudly and observe _argentinian_ customs and not english customs.  

but i can't get into a big argument with you. it's just about your teatime, i myself have real football to get ready for.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> i'll go too and talk loudly and observe _argentinian_ customs and not english customs.
> 
> but i can't get into a big argument with you. it's just about your teatime, i myself have real football to get ready for.



Cool story, bro.

Guess it's pretty cool to not see a territory that openly voted for British sovereignty and that wasn't strong-armed into doing it, but idealism tends to make people stupid.


----------



## G (Feb 5, 2011)

Oh. What a surprise.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 5, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> i'll go too and talk loudly and observe _argentinian_ customs and not english customs.
> 
> but i can't get into a big argument with you. it's just about your teatime, i myself have real football to get ready for.



Argentinian customs ? You mean snorting coke and acting like a retard. Good luck with that.


----------



## Keile (Feb 5, 2011)

You have to wonder what the fuck the State Department and CIA are doing with their time.

This is their sort of thing and they're not keeping up with it.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Besides, our cheeseburger-induced fat shield makes our armor all the thicker.


I would pay good money to see obese big-mac-eaters mounted on horses, with lances, jousting. Sometimes I wish Japan had won WWII.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Feb 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> I would pay good money to see obese big-mac-eaters mounted on horses, with lances, jousting. Sometimes I wish Japan had won WWII.



I always wish Japan had won.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> I would pay good money to see obese big-mac-eaters mounted on horses, with lances, jousting. Sometimes I wish Japan had won WWII.



That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard from you.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Feb 5, 2011)

Funny shit i guess, like i said though, according to the US govt, there are no friends, just people with things you want ...i personally don't think "nuclear arms secrecy" matters much considering that nobody is going to use them  That and, these were the missiles we supplied, which pretty much gives us the right to share that information


----------



## Bear Walken (Feb 5, 2011)

We now know why he called France our greatest allies and not the UK. He secretly had sold them the fuck out.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard from you.



I'd much rather more Gundams than that 40k bullshit.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> I'd much rather more Gundams than that 40k bullshit.



Too bad 40K is British.

Good effort, kiddo.


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Too bad 40K is British.
> 
> Good effort, kiddo.



No wonder it sucks compared to starcraft.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

Nice bait.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> No wonder it sucks compared to starcraft.



Hopping on that Korean dick eh ?


----------



## impersonal (Feb 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard from you.


My humour is under-appreciated here. Though it's true that a world-wide expansion of J-pop, perverted porn and boring sex would be a humanitarian disaster comparable in scale to a victory of nazism in Europe.


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Hopping on that Korean dick eh ?



Starcraft is American made. They just worship the damn game.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> My humour is under-appreciated here.



I tend to be as subtle as a sledgehammer, thus my ability to pick it up is just as lacking.


----------



## Danchou (Feb 5, 2011)

Hard to imagine.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Starcraft is American made. They just worship the damn game.



Keep telling yourself that. Gundam > Starcraft


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Keep telling yourself that. Gundam > Starcraft



Angsty teenagers < Space Hillbillies


----------



## Keile (Feb 5, 2011)

Lyra,

What are you talking about?

If ancestors African slaves do not have to give homage or defer to the British for having been brought to and then having later settled as freemen in the Americas, then why should there been any such expectation for America? ? 

America owes you nothing. Free men came to America from all over the globe, and they all played greater or lesser roles in creating it. This is true of all nations, including European ones such as England, in that all peoples are but a migratory transplant of another. And yet, despite the British being well aware of this, still I do not see them being so keen as to pay homage to "history" and pay tribute to the Horn of Africa.

The Industrial Revolution was a progression in manufacturing which would have eventually happened with or without the British. The only reason it first began in Britain was because at the time your nation was the most advanced in the world. No one owes you anything for that and you did not even plan it to happen. It just did. You do not get special immunity for it just as America does not get special immunity for basically revolutionizing science as it exists today.

And what has America done for the world?

How about crush England both economically and militarily in one century, and then proceed to save the world from Hitler during the next?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Angsty teenagers < Space Hillbillies



Japan > USA. That's just a fact.


----------



## Keile (Feb 5, 2011)

Raiden said:


> That was pretty good .
> 
> Anyway, I agree with the posters who said that this won't be too damaging. But I don't think this is the change Obama promised. In all seriousness, he said he resort to stuff like this. This is a fundamental bend in policy for some other country...: /.



I'm sick and tired of armchair diplomats deciding what is and isn't good for American diplomacy. How can you make this determination without having all relevant information at hand? You can't, right? It's great to have an opinion, but just making these statements without even a tincture of evidence to back it up is a ludicrous way to analyze issues. 

Why not just observe and reserve opinion if you are unable to produce evidence corroborating your viewpoints?


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Japan > USA. That's just a fact.



We already proved that USA > Japan in WW2.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> We already proved that USA > Japan in WW2.



Pretty much. Other than the arts there isn't too much I find appealing about East Asian cultures. anime=/=what japan is really like guys.


----------



## Keile (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> We already proved that USA > Japan in WW2.



Quite. Just a little reminder:



Japanpwnt.

We took some pictures of the day Japan became our bitch. They are here:



This is a uniquely symbolic picture. Notice how the single standing structure seems relatively unharmed while just about everything else--people included--has been reduced to rubble.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> We already proved that USA > Japan in WW2.



Says the guy who named himself after a fictional squadron from a japanese game


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 5, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Says the guy who named himself after a fictional squadron from a japanese game



They all used American or Russian fighters.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 5, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> They all used American or Russian fighters.



Still a japanese game developed for a japanese console


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Feb 5, 2011)

Keile said:


> Quite. Just a little reminder:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Things change.


----------



## -JT- (Feb 5, 2011)

Keile said:


> and then proceed to save the world from Hitler during the next?



Forgive me for butting in, but this is completely ignorant and undermines the efforts of every other Allied Nation. Yes, USA's entry made it an almost guaranteed victory there's no denying that, but the other countries did a hell of a lot too. And I'm not just saying this as an Englishman. I'd have been equally annoyed if someone said 'USA did nothing, they just turned up late and claimed victory etc.'


----------



## Keile (Feb 5, 2011)

-JT- said:


> Forgive me for butting in, but this is completely ignorant and undermines the efforts of every other Allied Nation. Yes, USA's entry made it an almost guaranteed victory there's no denying that, but the other countries did a hell of a lot too. And I'm not just saying this as an Englishman. I'd have been equally annoyed if someone said 'USA did nothing, they just turned up late and claimed victory etc.'



The war was basically won the USA entered the fray. 

Don't try to pretend differently. Without us, you would be speaking German today.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

Keile said:


> The war was basically won the USA entered the fray.
> 
> Don't try to pretend differently. Without us, you would be speaking German today.



Germany could have never invaded Britain successfully, and Germany would have never beaten the Russians anyway.

The US guaranteed a "western" dominance victory, but Germany was going to lose regardless.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

ITT: Who REALLY beat ze Germans and won WW2? 

On-topic: What we have to do to get Russians in on a plan now.


----------



## Keile (Feb 5, 2011)

Han Solo said:


> Germany could have never invaded Britain successfully, and Germany would have never beaten the Russians anyway.
> 
> The US guaranteed a "western" dominance victory, but Germany was going to lose regardless.



We'll have to create a thread to debate this. I disagree.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

Keile said:


> We'll have to create a thread to debate this. I disagree.



Frankly, I've had enough of these godamn WW2 debates. Why can't people discuss other wars instead, WW2 has been drilled into my head already, and I don't really care anymore.

Take this as a concession if you wish, and I'm sorry for even starting this considering I never really wanted to.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Feb 5, 2011)

Keile said:


> We'll have to create a thread to debate this. I disagree.



You're a troll and your opinion doesn't matter.

All of your posts in this thread have been reported for trolling and flamebait.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Feb 5, 2011)

Keile said:


> The war was basically won the USA entered the fray.
> 
> Don't try to pretend differently. Without us, you would be speaking German today.



80 percent of the casualties of the war were on the Eastern Front. It was the Soviets who faced and eventually crushed the bulk of the Germany military.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Feb 5, 2011)

Keile said:


> The war was basically won the USA entered the fray.
> 
> Don't try to pretend differently. *Without us*, you would be speaking German today.





> Location: Canada



Last I checked Canada was not the USA.


----------



## emROARS (Feb 5, 2011)

Han Solo said:


> Germany could have never invaded Britain successfully, and Germany would have never beaten the Russians anyway.
> 
> The US guaranteed a "western" dominance victory, but Germany was going to lose regardless.



Didn't Germany before the major part of the War want the UK to join with him? I remember my History Major friends going on about it. :/


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

Actually, you know what, I'll bite on one thing.

What makes you think Operation Sea Lion could have worked, even if Germany had won the Battle of Britain. I hear a lot of people mention this, but I've never really debated it.

Firstly I'll start with that war with the Soviets was inevitable, so the idea of Hitler not declaring war is a false one, and one I hear often. It was the very ideal of the Nazi regime to kill the "subhuman" Slavs, as much as it was to kill Jews.

There can't be that much more resources poured into taking Britain assuiming the Battle of Britain suceeded than there wold have otherwise.


----------



## -JT- (Feb 5, 2011)

Keile said:


> The war was basically won the USA entered the fray.


Correct. I already implied that.



> Don't try to pretend differently. Without us, you would be speaking German today.


No. Britain alone successfully forced Germany back during the Battle of Britain. Russia was the land force which crushed the majority of the German land force.
And there were more, but to state every single countries contribution to the war effort would create a tl:dr effect.


----------



## NeoKurama (Feb 5, 2011)

Oh, wow........


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 5, 2011)

Anyone who is not blinded by nationalism knows that the war against Nazi Germany was won on the Eastern Front. But Britain had its big contributions too. And of course countless countries had made countless sacrifices for not only the war against Nazi Germany but for WW2 and all other conflicts in it. (I see separate wars in the Pacific and against Nazi Germany as well. Separate wars that are part of what we call WW2.) But it doesn't matter, this penis comparison contest is juvenile.


----------



## αce (Feb 5, 2011)

My reading of this thread.


Butthurt British people? Check
British people who with obvious anti american views? Check
Butthurt Japs? Check
Americans who feel they need to stroke their own cocks? Check


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2011)

Could you guys get anymore off topic.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 5, 2011)

Well, this is embarrassing for the british. They have a huge trust in the special relationship with the US.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Well, this is embarrassing for the british. They have a huge trust in the special relationship with the US.


It's only as embarrassing as someone telling someone else how many of X weapon they sold someone else. 

The most embarrassing thing in this thread is the stupid side arguments this spawns.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's only as embarrassing as someone telling someone else how many of X weapon they sold someone else.
> 
> The most embarrassing thing in this thread is the stupid side arguments this spawns.



It was amusing for a while though.


----------



## WT (Feb 5, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Special relationshiplol.



The only known special relationship USA has is with Israel.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 5, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's only as embarrassing as someone telling someone else how many of X weapon they sold someone else.
> 
> The most embarrassing thing in this thread is the stupid side arguments this spawns.



Yeah but with the US best ally. It was a secret between them as very strong ally.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> The only known special relationship USA has is with Israel.


Go whine somewhere that people give a care. I mean seriously, is it in your contract to bring up Israel in every thread?


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

Jello Biafra said:


> 80 percent of the casualties of the war were on the Eastern Front. It was the Soviets who faced and eventually crushed the bulk of the Germany military.



I know you're the Soviet's biggest fan, but did you seriously just say that with a straight face?  Even Stalin knew that he was toast without the U.S. when he *begged* us to open a second front as quickly as possible so that his outmatched military didn't collapse.  Germany would have crushed Russia without our help and almost did anyway.  The fact that they took massive losses shows that they were losing, not winning.


----------



## WT (Feb 5, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Go whine somewhere that people give a care. I mean seriously, is it in your contract to bring up Israel in every thread?



lol, I haven't talked about Israel for quite some time. Besides, not whining, just stating the obvious.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Seriously...
> 
> It is well known that Powell's speach to the UN was a load of bullshit, and for a large part, knowingly so.
> 
> As for the French and Iraq, they were right all along.



America is objective, measurably, the greatest nation in the history of the world.  That isn't simplistic, its fact.

As for the French, they didn't have anything right.  They were taking bribe money from the oil for food program and looking the other way to Saddam's many treaty violations and other war acts.


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> America is objective, measurably, the greatest nation in the history of the world.  That isn't simplistic, its fact.
> 
> As for the French, they didn't have anything right.  They were taking bribe money from the oil for food program and looking the other way to Saddam's many treaty violations and other war acts.





Never ending amusement with you now isn't it?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> America is objective, measurably, the greatest nation in the history of the world.  That isn't simplistic, its fact.
> 
> As for the French, they didn't have anything right.  They were taking bribe money from the oil for food program and looking the other way to Saddam's many treaty violations and other war acts.



While you're somewhat right about the French stop embarassing the country with your BS statements about the best nation ever and all of this crap, its stuff like that which makes us just look worse


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 5, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> The only known special relationship USA has is with Israel.



Eh, considering the U.S. doesn't spill its own blood to defend Israel (as it would for its European, Arab, and Asian allies) I find that rather bizarre, unless you consider $3 Billion more important then actually fighting a war yourself for your ally.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> I know you're the Soviet's biggest fan, but did you seriously just say that with a straight face?  Even Stalin knew that he was toast without the U.S. when he *begged* us to open a second front as quickly as possible so that his outmatched military didn't collapse.  Germany would have crushed Russia without our help and almost did anyway.  The fact that they took massive losses shows that they were losing, not winning.



Please provide historical evidence for Stalin begging the US to do anything. Even if we assume that Germany would've won the war if it hadn't been for the US being forced into the war, the eastern front still had the highest number of casualties and it was still the Soviet Union that made the greatest sacrifices in that war (on the allied side at least).



fieryfalcon said:


> America is objective, measurably, the greatest nation in the history of the world.  That isn't simplistic, its fact.
> 
> As for the French, they didn't have anything right.  They were taking bribe money from the oil for food program and looking the other way to Saddam's many treaty violations and other war acts.



That was objectively and measurably the most insanely idiotic post you've made so far. In this thread. Today.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Eh, considering the U.S. doesn't spill its own blood to defend Israel (as it would for its European, Arab, and Asian allies) I find that rather bizarre, unless you consider $3 Billion more important then actually fighting a war yourself for your ally.


We really don't need to though, Israel could pretty much take on anyone who's trying to harm them right now. But I think that given the right circumstance we would have to jump in.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> While you're somewhat right about the French stop embarassing the country with your BS statements about the best nation ever and all of this crap, its stuff like that which makes us just look worse



It's that kind of limp wristed argument that really makes us look bad.  No one is going to think poorly of us merely because we're confident enough to be accurate about our nation, our culture, and our achievements.  America led the world into the age of liberty that we now live in.  We took English ideas of liberty, limited representative government, individualism, and the like, and applied them in a way that neither England nor any other European county was prepared to do.  

That experimentation in liberty, which, by the way, Europe thought would fail, unleashed human potential on a never before seen level.  Technological innovation leaped ahead in a way that had not been seen since the dawn of history.  For the first time the individual was more important and more powerful than the government.  The West now embodies all these values and stands as the greatest civilization in the history of the world, but America, as the leading Western nation, is the pinnacle of human advancement.  We're the future.


----------



## hcheng02 (Feb 5, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Eh, considering the U.S. doesn't spill its own blood to defend Israel (as it would for its European, Arab, and Asian allies) I find that rather bizarre, unless you consider $3 Billion more important then actually fighting a war yourself for your ally.



I think people look at the number of UN resolutions against Israel that the US vetoes and then jump to the conclusion that Israel is the favorite. Britain doesn't need the US to do that nonsense because it has its own Security Council Veto and other countries are not obsessed with wanking over them.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> It's that kind of limp wristed argument that really makes us look bad.  No one is going to think poorly of us merely because we're confident enough to be accurate about our nation, our culture, and our achievements.  America led the world into the age of liberty that we now live in.  We took English ideas of liberty, limited representative government, individualism, and the like, and applied them in a way that neither England nor any other European county was prepared to do.
> 
> That experimentation in liberty, which, by the way, Europe thought would fail, unleashed human potential on a never before seen level.  Technological innovation leaped ahead in a way that had not been seen since the dawn of history.  For the first time the individual was more important and more powerful than the government.  The West now embodies all these values and stands as the greatest civilization in the history of the world, but America, as the leading Western nation, is the pinnacle of human advancement.  We're the future.



Yeah okay, the evidence of the over confidence thing is all around you.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> I know you're the Soviet's biggest fan, but did you seriously just say that with a straight face?  Even Stalin knew that he was toast without the U.S. when he *begged* us to open a second front as quickly as possible so that his outmatched military didn't collapse.  Germany would have crushed Russia without our help and almost did anyway.  The fact that they took massive losses shows that they were losing, not winning.



Jello's right though.  Some of the heaviest fighting in the European campaign was in places like Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk, Berlin, etc., with heavy Soviet/German fighting.

Don't give me this shit, FF.  The Western Front was incredibly significant but the fact you completely overwrite the Russian comeback makes you look like the most naive piece of shit out there.  Lord knows the classes and reports I've been through with every sphere of WW2 can dictate how the Eastern Front was the heaviest.  The Americans took the Pacific, yes, but don't feed me this shit.


----------



## Stalin (Feb 5, 2011)

Anyone with more than a fraction can tell you that how much of a hell the eastern front was.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 5, 2011)

America isn't that great FF, it's no beter than any previous imperial power. No, the US does not care about freedom, but when your own people are not free themselves you hardly deserve the term "land of the free". 

I thought it was rather obvious that the Eastern front was the most heavy in terms of fighting and whatnot, you seriously need to stop fapping to Saving Private Ryan every day FF, it really isn't all that good for you.


----------



## Bender (Feb 5, 2011)

Damn.

But as others said you gotta do what you gotta do.


----------



## ExoSkel (Feb 5, 2011)

Every WW2 historians knows that the 90% of Nazi Wehrmacht's casualty was at the eastern front. Especially after the 6th army surrendered at the Stalingrad, that pretty much sealed Germany's fate.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

ExoSkel said:


> Every WW2 historians knows that the 90% of Nazi Wehrmacht's casualty was at the eastern front. Especially after the 6th army surrendered at the Stalingrad, that pretty much sealed Germany's fate.



Yes, but so what?  Germany would have won the Eastern front without American intervention, not only in troops, but also in massive amounts of war material pumped into the tottering Soviets.  The simple fact is that the U.S. could have fought and won against Germany single handedly because of our size and industrial strength.  

The 6th army would have likely survived without the U.S. intervention.  Key Luftwaffe units were withdrawn from the Stalingrad theater to fight against American forces in North Africa and the opening of the Italian campaign also tied down German resources.  Armies and, more importantly, supplies that could have been sent to sustain the 6th Army were diverted to counter the beginning of the overwhelming American onslaught.  

Russia beating the far superior German force without American supplies and American troops smashing their power base in the west?  Very unlikely...


----------



## Milan? (Feb 5, 2011)

I think it would be better to be friends with Russia than Britain though it sounds fucked up we betrayed them, and do not get me wrong, i disagree with a lot of obama's chioces, I hate him in fact, but if we went to war with Russia, we lose..insanely. If we went to war with britain, we win.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> America isn't that great FF, it's no beter than any previous imperial power. No, the US does not care about freedom, but when your own people are not free themselves you hardly deserve the term "land of the free".
> 
> I thought it was rather obvious that the Eastern front was the most heavy in terms of fighting and whatnot, you seriously need to stop fapping to Saving Private Ryan every day FF, it really isn't all that good for you.



Tired talking points from someone immersed in trendy anti-americanism.  America isn't an imperial power.  Imperial powers colonize backwater nations and take their resources.  America's foreign policy is the opposite; the homeland sends wealth around the world to rinky-dink countries and wealthy allies alike in security assurances, trade imbalances, and direct aid. 

I have no idea how you claim that American's aren't free.  We're not as free as we were 50 years ago, but we're freer than the rest of the world.

The Western Front did see the most personnel losses and the hardest fighting, but that doesn't change the fact that without the U.S. the Soviets would have likely lost.  They were too outmatched without our troops and supplies.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> I have no idea how you claim that American's aren't free.  We're not as free as we were 50 years ago, but we're freer than the rest of the world.



Who exactly are you Fiery, telling other people what freedom was 50 years ago in relation to today? 

You must be talking about baby boom whitey  the idealist 50s those like you admire never existed to begin with

I'll disagree with Xyl, on the point of of generalizing into what "America" cares about, freedom or otherwise, but what your saying has no basis in reality.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Who exactly are you Fiery, telling other people what freedom was 50 years ago in relation to today?
> 
> You must be talking about baby boom whitey  the idealist 50s those like you admire never existed to begin with
> 
> I'll disagree with Xyl, on the point of of generalizing into what "America" cares about, freedom or otherwise, but what your saying has no basis in reality.



It's just a rough number for illustration.  100 years ago was freer still.  The government has steadily encroached on our liberty for some time now.  I measure freedom on how removed from people's lives the government is.  Taxes, regulations, etc, were much less 50 years ago, 100 years ago...


----------



## Nemesis (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> I have no idea how you claim that American's aren't free.  We're not as free as we were 50 years ago, but we're freer than the rest of the world.
> 
> The Western Front did see the most personnel losses and the hardest fighting, but that doesn't change the fact that without the U.S. the Soviets would have likely lost.  They were too outmatched without our troops and supplies.



Actually near enough every single index of freedoms puts the US WAY BEHIND Scandinavian, western European, Aus, NZ and a few eastern European nations.  You are not the freest country in the world and in reality never have been.

Also German over extending, absolute stupid orders from hitler and the fact the soviet industry went way beyond the German bomber reach did more to counter the Germans than US aid did.  US aid ended up being less than 10% of all soviet rescourses during the whole of the war which most historians say at best made victory against Germany end a couple months earlier.

In north Africa it was British and commonwealth forces that started beating back the Germans and Italians in 41,  before any american troops even left for europe in 42.

US involvement was important yes but what you are doing is blatently downplay every other nation that faught in the war weather Soviet, British, Commonwealth or even Free French.


----------



## Eki (Feb 5, 2011)

Thanks wiki leaks :3


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 5, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> Actually near enough every single index of freedoms puts the US WAY BEHIND Scandinavian, western European, Aus, NZ and a few eastern European nations.  You are not the freest country in the world and in reality never have been.



Most of those indices use wrongheaded criteria for the evaluation of freedom, such as capital punishment or gay marriage.  In any event, without some source your claim is meaningless.  



> Also German over extending, absolute stupid orders from hitler and the fact the soviet industry went way beyond the German bomber reach did more to counter the Germans than US aid did.  US aid ended up being less than 10% of all soviet rescourses during the whole of the war which most historians say at best made victory against Germany end a couple months earlier.



Hitler's stand fast orders didn't help of course, but again, that doesn't matter to the ultimate conclusion.  U.S. aid flowed at precisely the right time; Soviet production after that critical timeframe is irrelevant.  Lost German production after the U.S. starting destroying their infrastructure, on the other hand, is highly relevant.  

You're appealing to authorities with your "historians say," and it isn't compelling.  If you don't want to defend the point then at least give me one of these "historians" so we can judge his argument.  



> In north Africa it was British and commonwealth forces that started beating back the Germans and Italians in 41,  before any american troops even left for europe in 42.



Are you just really lazy or do you not understand how to argue a position?  Are you implying that the British could have replaced the Americans in the West to shore up the Soviets?  If not then your point about the British leading the charge is irrelevant.  



> US involvement was important yes but what you are doing is blatently downplay every other nation that faught in the war weather Soviet, British, Commonwealth or even Free French.



I'm not trying to downplay it, but I'm not going to give them credit that isn't due.  The British and the French couldn't win without the U.S.  The Soviets couldn't win without the U.S.  At various points all of those groups fought with honor and distinction, but they didn't win the war.  Why do you insist on trying to downplay the United State's contributions?


----------



## Phoebus (Feb 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> Yes, but so what?  Germany would have won the Eastern front without American intervention, not only in troops, but also in massive amounts of war material pumped into the tottering Soviets.  The simple fact is that the U.S. could have fought and won against Germany single handedly because of our size and industrial strength.
> 
> The 6th army would have likely survived without the U.S. intervention.  Key Luftwaffe units were withdrawn from the Stalingrad theater to fight against American forces in North Africa and the opening of the Italian campaign also tied down German resources.  Armies and, more importantly, supplies that could have been sent to sustain the 6th Army were diverted to counter the beginning of the overwhelming American onslaught.



Actually, the Soviets did quite an admirable job of beating the Germans even while simultaneously  another front in Europe was opened with Operation Husky in July 1943. Before and around that point in time, the Wehrmacht was losing their last real offensive on the Eastern Front, operation citadel. Stalingrad was long over by that time and the Luftwaffe units were regrouped because Goering foolishly thought the remaining forces were sufficient. 

And the Americans were initially thought of as quite poorly, when they were shown to be ineffective fighters/tacticians when the Germans first encountered them in North Africa in the Battle of the Kasserine Pass.

And Germany productivity under Albert Speer reached its climax in early 1944, which was far too late to make any real impact, but the logistics issue I will cite below was far more relevant.


The one aspect where the US were definitely superior was logistics, and the numbers of their materiel. Their aerial forces crippled the industrial capacity of Germany late in 1944, bound valuable resources and continuously destroyed railroads to such an extent that Nazi Germany never recuperated from it.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Feb 6, 2011)

Given that Obama has repeatedly been noted to care less about European nations than other, more relevant (in his view at least) countries, I'm not particularly surprised by this.


----------



## kayanathera (Feb 6, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> Yes, but so what?  Germany would have won the Eastern front without American intervention, not only in troops, but also in massive amounts of war material pumped into the tottering Soviets.  The simple fact is that the U.S. could have fought and won against Germany single handedly because of our size and industrial strength.
> 
> The 6th army would have likely survived without the U.S. intervention.  Key Luftwaffe units were withdrawn from the Stalingrad theater to fight against American forces in North Africa and the opening of the Italian campaign also tied down German resources.  Armies and, more importantly, supplies that could have been sent to sustain the 6th Army were diverted to counter the beginning of the overwhelming American onslaught.
> 
> Russia beating the far superior German force without American supplies and American troops smashing their power base in the west?  Very unlikely...


son you are delusionalno single country would have won on their own against Germany in WWII.given enough time german technological prowess would have defeated both USSR or US one on one.thats why an alliance was needed(even if Churchill was adamantly anti-communist)


----------



## impersonal (Feb 6, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> I know you're the Soviet's biggest fan, but did you seriously just say that with a straight face?  Even Stalin knew that he was toast without the U.S. when he *begged* us to open a second front as quickly as possible so that his outmatched military didn't collapse.  Germany would have crushed Russia without our help and almost did anyway.  The fact that they took massive losses shows that they were losing, not winning.


Way to be put your ignorance on display. Russia was begging the US to open a second front in *1942*, when indeed the situation was difficult and Russia was suffering enormous losses. Not that much in *1944*, after the Soviets had taken the bulk of the nazi's army strength, and had been progressing for two years all over the eastern front.

It is true for both World Wars that, although decisive, the US army only entered the European scene of events after most of the fighting was over already, and most of the fighters dead. This is easily verifiable numerically. The US army suffered 100,000 death during WWI (10 million european soldiers died) and 400,000 during WWII (on all theaters of operations), when more than 18 million soldiers died only in Europe (not counting civilians). While casualties are not a perfect measure of military involvement, it is not negligible data for (relatively) symmetrical conflicts from a technological perspective.

Which is not to say the US intervention in WWII wasn't immensely helpful, given Stalin's ambition. But the US probably saved Europe from the soviets more so than from the nazis.



			
				fieryfalcon said:
			
		

> America is objective, measurably, the greatest nation in the history of the world. That isn't simplistic, its fact.


Measurably? The Mongol empire was much larger and extended over a much larger part of humanity and its riches. The British empire was even larger and richer (though smaller in terms of its share of the world population). That's for the "measurable" stuff.

When it comes to non-measurable stuff, America has a mixed track record... The US helped furthering science, but not much more than various Western Europe nations. In terms of the arts or philosophy, the US remains far behind many other empires. Politically, it promoted democracy here and there, supporting dictators in other places. But generally it had a rather positive role in the world, mostly against the USSR, imperial Japan and to a certain degree nazism. The US were better than, say, the Soviets or the Mongols.

How you would measure all of that, compared to the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Mongols, British, French, Russians, etc., most of which also brought political and social change with their influence, I have no idea. Objectively measuring it? That is completely retarded.



			
				fieryfalcon said:
			
		

> As for the French, they didn't have anything right. They were taking bribe money from the oil for food program and looking the other way to Saddam's many treaty violations and other war acts.


Bush's lies are "baseless accusations" (despite relatively heavy evidence) when France's arguments are "motivated by bribes" (despite very light evidence). Regardless of whether this is the case, this doesn't make these arguments false. And indeed, reality proved them to be prophetic.

The war was a quagmire for years; instead of being accepted as liberators, the US army was fought against to this day.

It increased instability in the region, furthering anti-US and anti-Western sentiment and reducing the US capacity to wage war (or threaten to wage war) against the local countries. Impeding European and American diplomacy with the Arab world, fueling terrorism, accrediting the theory of a "shock of civilizations", and making peace between Israel and Palestine impossible.

And finally, there were no WMDs.

This does not mean France was right to oppose a veto, as this possibly made the situation even worse. Nonetheless, France's arguments were sound, while the US were full of shit.



			
				fieryfalcon said:
			
		

> Why do you insist on trying to downplay the United State's contributions?



Again, I'm not here trying to establish the inferiority of the US compared to any other nation. I'm trying to correct a wrong -- fieryfalcon's continued historical revisionism on a number of factual issues. My goal is purely negative: I want to prove that fieryfalcon is wrong and that his position reveals only ignorance. I do not intend to prove anything in place of his opinions (though I have to in some cases).


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 6, 2011)

kayanathera said:


> son you are delusionalno single country would have won on their own against Germany in WWII.given enough time german technological prowess would have defeated both USSR or US one on one.thats why an alliance was needed(even if Churchill was adamantly anti-communist)



Actually, I think you might be wrong in both cases. The Soviets might have been able to win without outside help. And the technological advantage of the Germans would not be long supposing a total war against the Americans either. (Assuming that the Americans are committed to a war against Germany despite its bigger cost if it is an one on one scenario).  So I believe the Americans would outproduce the Germans and win the war against them if they were committed. 

 An alliance however was needed to bring a haste to the defeat and limit the bloodiness of the war, Nazi Germany was enemy number one, although it can be put up to debate if there was a way to both succeed the fall of the Nazi empire, and if at the same time the Americans and Allies could have succeeded to get an even less red Europe than what we got. I dunno. 

Anyway, the Americans and the Soviets had strategic advantages over the Germans despite being less prepared for war than the Germans were when they started it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> CTK, I appreciate your support for fieryfalcon's position, but since he has no arguments -- perhaps you have a few of your own to offer?


You mean that France wasn't always at Iraq's defense, they were even like that prior to the Gulf War. And in 2003 they were kind of back to the same place, France was one of the Western countries that had a huge economic stake in Iraq. There were even reports France tried to help them prepare for the war. 

Now while you can claim that the invasion of Iraq was not right, you can't act as if Saddam's regime was ever in the right and that they should have received help and money when they repeatedly disobey the UN's wishes and fought to cover so much up.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 6, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You mean that France wasn't always at Iraq's defense, they were even like that prior to the Gulf War. And in 2003 they were kind of back to the same place, France was one of the Western countries that had a huge economic stake in Iraq. There were even reports France tried to help them prepare for the war.
> 
> Now while you can claim that the invasion of Iraq was not right, you can't act as if Saddam's regime was ever in the right and that they should have received help and money when they repeatedly disobey the UN's wishes and fought to cover so much up.



hm, I had edited my post to remove my rather aggressive tone against you (I tend to do that, sorry about it). Regardless, I think you can appreciate that France's arguments in 2003 were good, and were not listened to because the US media were still somehow caught in a post 9-11 trance, which is what lead to all the French bashing / xenophobia.

Besides, I don't think anybody believes, or believed, or stated in 2003 that Saddam was a good guy. He was a problem. The question was rather: is war a good solution? History, I think, says no. The war cost a lot, didn't bring much stability, and was *extremely* detrimental for mutual cultural appreciation and understanding between the west and the arab world.

It did huge long-term damage.


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 6, 2011)

Mael said:


> Jello's right though.  Some of the heaviest fighting in the European campaign was in places like Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk, Berlin, etc., with heavy Soviet/German fighting.
> 
> Don't give me this shit, FF.  The Western Front was incredibly significant but the fact you completely overwrite the Russian comeback makes you look like the most naive piece of shit out there.  Lord knows the classes and reports I've been through with every sphere of WW2 can dictate how the Eastern Front was the heaviest.  The Americans took the Pacific, yes, but don't feed me this shit.



Russia had some gruesome fighting tactics though. Unlike pretty much everyone else save for Japan Russia just threw people at their opposition hence why their sides were always the bloodiest of conflicts.

The Germans were indeed getting pushed back but that was mainly because of the dreaded Russian winter which beats everyone. If the western front ever opened up Germany stood a good chance at finally pushing back and knocking Russia out. Hitler was just too stupid to go off and invade everyone. I would of stuck to taking out all the western nations and left Russia for another time.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 6, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You mean that France wasn't always at Iraq's defense, they were even like that prior to the Gulf War. And in 2003 they were kind of back to the same place, France was one of the Western countries that had a huge economic stake in Iraq. *There were even reports France tried to help them prepare for the war. *
> 
> Now while you can claim that the invasion of Iraq was not right, you can't act as if Saddam's regime was ever in the right and that they should have received help and money when they repeatedly disobey the UN's wishes and fought to cover so much up.



Where come from this report ??? US media ???


----------



## impersonal (Feb 6, 2011)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> Where come from this report ??? US media ???



What do you think. There have been studies on this kind of phenomenon. If you give people two news articles, one from a credible source and another that is known to be complete bullshit, people are able 1 hour later to tell which one was crap and which one was not. 

Ask them again 3 months later, and they don't remember which was reliable and which wasn't... And now they believe a little bit in the lies of the second article.

In the shitstorm that engulfed the US media in 2003, you can bet a lot of bullshit was said about France.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> What do you think. There have been studies on this kind of phenomenon. If you give people two news articles, one from a credible source and another that is known to be complete bullshit, people are able 1 hour later to tell which one was crap and which one was not.
> 
> Ask them again 3 months later, and they don't remember which was reliable and which wasn't... And now they believe a little bit in the lies of the second article.
> 
> In the shitstorm that engulfed the US media in 2003, you can bet a lot of bullshit was said about France.



I know a lot of shit was said about France in 2003 or even in 2005 during the riots.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Feb 6, 2011)

Fieryfalcon confirmed as a 14 year old who thinks hollywood WW2 movies accurately represent the war.


----------



## hyakku (Feb 6, 2011)

LOL, I looked at this thread's title and on the last page there are discussions of WWII alternative scenarios and French support of the Iraqi army.

NF is awesome.


----------



## Antlion6 (Feb 6, 2011)

Oh Obama. Everyone in the UK used to like you. You changed man.

As long as we have tea then no country can stand against us.


----------



## -JT- (Feb 6, 2011)

Antlion6 said:


> As long as we have tea then no country can stand against us.



Au contraire!
Take away our tea and we become savage beasts hell-bent on revenge! We'd be an unstoppable fighting force :ho


----------



## ExoSkel (Feb 6, 2011)

Emasculation Storm said:


> Fieryfalcon confirmed as a 14 year old who thinks hollywood WW2 movies accurately represent the war.


I believe he thinks the US alone defeated the Nazis after watching Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers.


----------



## Sky is Over (Feb 6, 2011)

A side of me says that it isn't so much as giving away the abortion codes, just mentioning the stockpile itself. It's a crude and unorthodox method, but would Britain reveal its stockpile to the Russian goverment with or without having to be spied on? 

Either way, it's another jab by wikileaks to try and slander the american foreign policy. It's like throwing grapes at a gorilla, nothing great to be accomplished besides putting the country's business out in the open.


----------



## Velocity (Feb 6, 2011)

Antlion6 said:


> Oh Obama. Everyone in the UK used to like you. You changed man.
> 
> As long as we have tea then no country can stand against us.



Our ultimate weapon.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 6, 2011)

Tea fails pretty hard in my opinion, the UK is a joke of a country anyway. We're clown of Northern Europe, when we actually accept we're part of Europe as opposed to being in a similar state to Puerto Rico.


----------



## Velocity (Feb 6, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> Tea fails pretty hard in my opinion, the UK is a joke of a country anyway. We're clown of Northern Europe, when we actually accept we're part of Europe as opposed to being in a similar state to Puerto Rico.



Huh? We're not part of Europe and even if the Euro becomes worth more than the Pound, something that'll never happen anyway, there's no reason for us to ever become a part of it. There are no benefits for us fully becoming part of the European Union, so why should we? You'd rather we became some nameless part of a union that doesn't care about our "joke of a country"? 

If we join the EU properly, we're screwed for good. We'll lose our currency, we'll get taxed more to pay for the rest of Europe and what will we get in return? The opportunity to ditch our flag and replace it with the European one? We already can't celebrate St George's Day, so I guess we might as well get rid of any identity this country has...


----------



## Inuhanyou (Feb 6, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> It's just a rough number for illustration.  100 years ago was freer still.  The government has steadily encroached on our liberty for some time now.  I measure freedom on how removed from people's lives the government is.  Taxes, regulations, etc, were much less 50 years ago, 100 years ago...



Taxes, regulations, talking points..ect, ect  What exactly do you listen to to have such a frame of mind i wonder?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Feb 6, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> Tea fails pretty hard in my opinion, the UK is a joke of a country anyway. We're clown of Northern Europe, when we actually accept we're part of Europe as opposed to being in a similar state to Puerto Rico.



You have actual efficiency as a nation, i'd say thats more than a joke


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 6, 2011)

We're not efficient. The Germans are the efficient ones.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 6, 2011)

Lyra said:


> Huh? We're not part of Europe and even if the Euro becomes worth more than the Pound, something that'll never happen anyway, there's no reason for us to ever become a part of it. There are no benefits for us fully becoming part of the European Union, so why should we? You'd rather we became some nameless part of a union that doesn't care about our "joke of a country"?



Historically, culturally, geographically, economically and geologically we are part of Europe. There are many benefits of us being in the EU, such as trade, free movement of labour for our own and foreign workers, political strength and a more equal partnership than we have with the USA, seeing as France and Germany are more important than we are.



> If we join the EU properly, we're screwed for good. We'll lose our currency, we'll get taxed more to pay for the rest of Europe and what will we get in return? The opportunity to ditch our flag and replace it with the European one? We already can't celebrate St George's Day, so I guess we might as well get rid of any identity this country has...



I would be happy to join the Euro if those economically weaker Southern European states were not in it. We could do with a more progressive system of taxation as we have some of the lowest taxes in the EU. We get things from the EU as well, we just don't sign post them as well as they do in many other nations and of course we should build up the economically weaker nations which are in the EU, as we'll benefit from having bigger economies to trade with.

What's the point of St George's Day anyway? There aren't any celebrations for it and its pretty ridiculous to venerate a Middle Eastern man who killed a fictitious creature. Intergrating into the EU does not take away identity, the French and Germans have not lost their identities, so why would we? The UK needs to stop being so self important and realise that this "little Englander" attitude will not get us anywhere.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Feb 6, 2011)

Its all relative, in comparison to the USA your efficient  And the grouts maybe efficient in economics maybe, but socially, your about the same  What with Merkel and Cameron both coming out and saying that multiculturalism has failed  Even so, the fact remains that relatively your still leagues ahead the US in that sector as well


----------



## impersonal (Feb 6, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> Historically, culturally, geographically, economically and geologically we are part of Europe.


Don't forget politically. The UK is part of the EU already.

I find it bizarre that many Brits think the EU is out to get them and destroy their culture. The French, Spanish, Italian and German have very different cultures and identities and none of them has seen it threatened by being part of the European Union.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Don't forget politically. The UK is part of the EU already.
> 
> I find it bizarre that many Brits think the EU is out to get them and destroy their culture. The French, Spanish, Italian and German have very different cultures and identities, despite all being Europeans and part of the Unions, and none of them has seen it threatened by being part of Europe.



Those countries don't have the Murdoch Press infecting and corrupting them though, nor have the New Right had as much power as they have had compared to the UK.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Feb 6, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> I know you're the Soviet's biggest fan, but did you seriously just say that with a straight face?  Even Stalin knew that he was toast without the U.S. when he *begged* us to open a second front as quickly as possible so that his outmatched military didn't collapse.  Germany would have crushed Russia without our help and almost did anyway.  The fact that they took massive losses shows that they were losing, not winning.



80 percent of _all_ war casualties were on the Eastern Front. They bled the Germans just as much as the Germans hurt them. Yeah, America helped a lot, particularly with Lend-Lease Aid. But by the time of D-Day, the tide had already turned. The Soviets were steadily kicking the Germans off their turf, and they'd inflicted tremendous, humilating defeats to the Nazis at Kursk, Smolensk, the Dneiper and Lvov.


----------



## Psycho (Feb 6, 2011)

so... i guess this is nothing to be surprised by since cooperation is only another way of enforcing your interests


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 7, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Way to be put your ignorance on display. Russia was begging the US to open a second front in *1942*, when indeed the situation was difficult and Russia was suffering enormous losses. Not that much in *1944*, after the Soviets had taken the bulk of the nazi's army strength, and had been progressing for two years all over the eastern front.
> 
> It is true for both World Wars that, although decisive, the US army only entered the European scene of events after most of the fighting was over already, and most of the fighters dead. This is easily verifiable numerically. The US army suffered 100,000 death during WWI (10 million european soldiers died) and 400,000 during WWII (on all theaters of operations), when more than 18 million soldiers died only in Europe (not counting civilians). While casualties are not a perfect measure of military involvement, it is not negligible data for (relatively) symmetrical conflicts from a technological perspective.
> 
> Which is not to say the US intervention in WWII wasn't immensely helpful, given Stalin's ambition. But the US probably saved Europe from the soviets more so than from the nazis.



I've already responded to most of this in my previous posts, but to summarize, the U.S. supplied the Soviets at a crucial time and tied down vast amount of German resources that would have otherwise been used against the USSR.  The Soviets couldn't have driven into Nazi territory and every month that passed was one month closer to the Nazi's fielding what would have been unstoppable technology, especially in jet fighters, against the Soviets.  Nazi manufacturing centers would have been undamaged and all the resources that went into the defense of the West, including significant tank division reserves, would have been devoted to the East.  

America suffered fewer casualities because our armies were well equipped and able to win decisive battles on a quick timeframe.  Soviety armies were woefully equipped in almost every area except armor (and even there they lacked basic coordination equipment like radios) and so even when they managed to squeak out a victory it was at the cost of staggering losses in personnel.  Soviet losses merely illustrate their overall weakness and show why they were losing over all.  Germany's advance was blunted, thanks to mass Soviet losses, but Germany's strengths...better troops, better equipment, better industry...would have overwhelmed the hapless USSR with time.



> Measurably? The Mongol empire was much larger and extended over a much larger part of humanity and its riches. The British empire was even larger and richer (though smaller in terms of its share of the world population). That's for the "measurable" stuff.



The Mongols were barbarians and the people under them were slaves or worse.  England was a mighty nation no doubt, but it was never unrivaled economically, technologically, or militarily as the U.S. is.  Of course, its fitting that the only nation to eclipse England is a nation that started as an English colony.  



> When it comes to non-measurable stuff, America has a mixed track record... The US helped furthering science, but not much more than various Western Europe nations. In terms of the arts or philosophy, the US remains far behind many other empires. Politically, it promoted democracy here and there, supporting dictators in other places. But generally it had a rather positive role in the world, mostly against the USSR, imperial Japan and to a certain degree nazism. The US were better than, say, the Soviets or the Mongols.
> 
> How you would measure all of that, compared to the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Mongols, British, French, Russians, etc., most of which also brought political and social change with their influence, I have no idea. Objectively measuring it? That is completely retarded.



Individual liberty, technology, wealth, military strength, stability of institutions...those are the measures of a nation's greatness...



> Bush's lies are "baseless accusations" (despite relatively heavy evidence) when France's arguments are "motivated by bribes" (despite very light evidence). Regardless of whether this is the case, this doesn't make these arguments false. And indeed, reality proved them to be prophetic.



France was in the wrong, even if some of the things it said happened to be true.  Bush was right, even if he had a few things wrong.  Right and wrong are not based on the outcome, but on the quality of the decision that was made at the time it was made.  A bribe based decision is inferior, even if correct, to a 'best information' based decision, even if its wrong.



> The war was a quagmire for years; instead of being accepted as liberators, the US army was fought against to this day.



Immaterial and, incidentally, incorrect.  It was a quagmire only in the minds of the media, which hyped up the storyline they wanted when Bush was in only to change their tune when Obama came in.  When you invade a nation with relatively few losses and fight a retrograde resistance movement for a few years that isn't a quagmire, that's just what anyone should expect in that situation.



> It increased instability in the region, furthering anti-US and anti-Western sentiment and reducing the US capacity to wage war (or threaten to wage war) against the local countries. Impeding European and American diplomacy with the Arab world, fueling terrorism, accrediting the theory of a "shock of civilizations", and making peace between Israel and Palestine impossible.
> 
> And finally, there were no WMDs.
> 
> This does not mean France was right to oppose a veto, as this possibly made the situation even worse. Nonetheless, France's arguments were sound, while the US were full of shit.



The roots of anti-americanism are not founded in anything so simple as whether we invade this dictatorship or that.  If you want to make that argument then the only solution is total isolationism, but even a superpower like the U.S. couldn't pull that off because isolationism is seen as its own kind of intervention.  Doing nothing can have just as profound an effect as sending in the marines as President Obama demonstrated when he did nothing to support Iranian protests in the wake of the latest electorial farce in that nation.  

The thing that will most weaken our hand abroad is weakness.  Invading Iraq and overthrowing a dictator doesn't weaken our hand.  Being craven squishes who refuse to fly our flag during the conquest, who immediately bargain with anti-american forces in the nation, who turn the nation over to a democratic process that values form, i.e., physical elections, over function, i.e., institutions promoting liberty will weaken our national standing.  To the extent that Iraq destabilized the region or weakened the U.S. it is only because we didn't install one of our generals as a military dictator and administer the nation indefinately until we'd built something up that could stand on its own.

The "arab world" that exists is incompatible with the modern West.  Its a backward civilization in thrall to primitive and often barbaric customs that maim and oppress women, murders its own citizenry for imagined offenses (like homosexuality), and imposes arbitrary rule through rediculous codes like Sharia.  The arab world has to be reformed, preferrably through its own modernization efforts, or, if necessary, by force when its convenient for the West as it was in Afghanistan and Iraq.



> Again, I'm not here trying to establish the inferiority of the US compared to any other nation. I'm trying to correct a wrong -- fieryfalcon's continued historical revisionism on a number of factual issues. My goal is purely negative: I want to prove that fieryfalcon is wrong and that his position reveals only ignorance. I do not intend to prove anything in place of his opinions (though I have to in some cases).



Keep trying!



Jello Biafra said:


> 80 percent of _all_ war casualties were on the Eastern Front. They bled the Germans just as much as the Germans hurt them. Yeah, America helped a lot, particularly with Lend-Lease Aid. But by the time of D-Day, the tide had already turned. The Soviets were steadily kicking the Germans off their turf, and they'd inflicted tremendous, humilating defeats to the Nazis at Kursk, Smolensk, the Dneiper and Lvov.



Oh please; the Germans had advanced far into Soviet territory and decimated much of it.  The Soviets also decimated much of their own territory in scorched earth tactics.  Germany on the other hand had the entire productive potential of France, Italy, Germany, and the minor territories in Europe untouched.  England would not have been able to drive Germany out of N. Africa without the U.S. which means that Soviet oil producing territory would likely have been in danger from Rommel.  Germany had not been damaged anywhere near as badly as the Soviets and likely would never have been damaged but for American intervention.


----------



## Psycho (Feb 7, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> Oh please; *the Germans had advanced far into Soviet territory and decimated much of it.  The Soviets also decimated much of their own territory in scorched earth tactics*.  Germany on the other hand had the entire productive potential of France, Italy, Germany, and the minor territories in Europe untouched.  England would not have been able to drive Germany out of N. Africa without the U.S. which means that Soviet oil producing territory would likely have been in danger from Rommel.  Germany had not been damaged anywhere near as badly as the Soviets and likely would never have been damaged but for American intervention.



germans barely decimates soviet territory because there was barely anything to decimate; hell, soviets burned their own cities and plantations and poisoned their own water sources

of course the americans made a difference in the war, but the difference made by the soviets was much much greater; just to remind you, the red army is still considered one of the greatest armies in the history of mankind


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2011)

Why is this argument still going on?


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 7, 2011)

Psycho said:


> germans barely decimates soviet territory because there was barely anything to decimate; hell, soviets burned their own cities and plantations and poisoned their own water sources
> 
> of course the americans made a difference in the war, but the difference made by the soviets was much much greater; just to remind you, the red army is still considered one of the greatest armies in the history of mankind



I'm amazed that every point of Russia's weakness...its own willful destruction of its territory and massive losses....are taken as strengths.  The Soviet army was large, but it wasn't ever as mighty as America's military.  It was permanently inferior because it was forever reliant on a technology base and economy struggling to keep up with a more advanced capitalist system.  It was a second rate super power from start to finish.

It contributed to the war's outcome, it made our job easier, but it wasn't the decisive factor.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 7, 2011)

fieryfalcon....your American exceptionalism is the reason why the world views America with disdain.


Yes, America played a huge part but the Soviets help made it easier for America to take the Nazis down because their cooperation with each other was the decisive factor!

Including, our other Allied comrades.

*That is the point!*


Your American superiority complex is rather annoying......Especially, with you claiming that America is the best country in the world a few pages ago !


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 7, 2011)

What the heck?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> fieryfalcon....your American exceptionalism is the reason why the world views America with disdain.
> 
> 
> Yes, America played a huge part but the Soviets help made it easier for America to take the Nazis down because their cooperation with each other was the decisive factor!
> ...



Calling America best really isn't that far fetched, its definitely one of the best places to live in the world. In fact pretty much anything in the Southern Hemisphere and most of the countries between Japan and Russia and below Europe are places where most sensible people wouldn't choose to live.


----------



## pikachuwei (Feb 7, 2011)

^fuck you

NZ and Australia ftw

well, mainly NZ since australia getting flooded/drought combo at the same time.

but i laugh at FF thinking America is the "best" and "freest" country to live in the world when it has such a big fucking crime rate and more useless politicians than one can count (though that last point seems to apply for just about all countries these days)


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 7, 2011)

pikachuwei said:


> ^fuck you
> 
> NZ and Australia ftw
> 
> ...



Shut up, he wasn't saying that America was the best country ever in history, just that overall it is a good place to live.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Calling America best really isn't that far fetched, its definitely one of the best places to live in the world. In fact pretty much anything in the Southern Hemisphere and most of the countries between Japan and Russia and below Europe are places where most sensible people wouldn't choose to live.



I don't think anyone is saying that America is a terrible place to live in world standards, but the massive inequalities in American society means that it only seems to be a great place to live if you're rich. I would say the best places in the world to live would be somewhere in Northern Europe, like the Netherlands or something. 

FF's claim that it is the greatest country ever is utterly ridiculous though.


----------



## Razgriez (Feb 7, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> fieryfalcon....your American exceptionalism is the reason why the world views America with disdain.
> 
> 
> Yes, America played a huge part but the Soviets help made it easier for America to take the Nazis down because their cooperation with each other was the decisive factor!
> ...


Translation: We are jealous and we hate your upbeat attitude towards your own country.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2011)

pikachuwei said:


> ^fuck you
> 
> NZ and Australia ftw
> 
> ...



NZ and Australia aren't bad places...they're just twenty fucking hours from any _other _place where a person might want to be.

And wouldn't the country with more freedoms have more crime...your logic doesn't seem like logic at all. 



Xyloxi said:


> Shut up, he wasn't saying that America was the best country ever in history, just that overall it is a good place to live.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anywhere you live, its better to be rich.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Anywhere you live, its better to be rich.



In the US that is massively increased though due to the poor income equality, compared to continental Europe.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> In the US that is massively increased though due to the poor income equality, compared to continental Europe.


I think its an unfair standard because we kind of have a manufactured and seemingly intentional lower class to buff the numbers and that no one feels obligated to care about. I think that given enough of those same factors any first would country would make more policies favoring the rich. 

Plus we don't have the issue of class here as a big issue, I mean the Middleton girl is cute and bagged herself a fucking Prince and people over there can't stop going on about what class she was born into as if she's stained.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think its an unfair standard because we kind of have a manufactured and seemingly intentional lower class to buff the numbers and that no one feels obligated to care about. I think that given enough of those same factors any first would country would make more policies favoring the rich.
> 
> Plus we don't have the issue of class here as a big issue, I mean the Middleton girl is cute and bagged herself a fucking Prince and people over there can't stop going on about what class she was born into as if she's stained.



The fact you do have an intentional lower class that nobody cares about kind of makes my point. So it isn't an unfair comparison, it would be unfair if I were comparing the developed world to the emerging powers and saying the BRICs were all terrible places because of their lower standard of living, despite the fact how most of their economies are growing rapidly.

You do have an issue with class, as seen by the massive inequalities in American society, I am not saying that British society is perfect, far from it, but in the developed world America is the most unequal with such things as income. With Kate Middleton, its generally just the reactionary right wing press complaing, she's hardly "normal" anyway, seeing as she went to a prestigious private school and then one of the best universities in the UK.

I like how much we've derailed this thread.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 7, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Don't forget politically. The UK is part of the EU already.
> 
> *I find it bizarre that many Brits think the EU is out to get them and destroy their culture. The French, Spanish, Italian and German have very different cultures and identities and none of them has seen it threatened by being part of the European Union.*





Xyloxi said:


> *Those countries don't have the Murdoch Press infecting and corrupting them* though, nor have the New Right had as much power as they have had compared to the UK.



I don't want to start a polemic but....the European should ask themselves, what threaten their culture, when they watch Tv series, movies that's come from a single non european country. When they go eat to Mc donalds, Burger King, Subway or KFC. When they listen radio and listen 80% of songs from the same non European country......

Is it the EU that threaten their culture ????


----------



## Han Solo (Feb 7, 2011)

The actual thread content stopped some 7 pages ago or something. Lol.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 7, 2011)

Wikileaks needs to be taking down. There are somethings that the public just shouldn't know.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Feb 7, 2011)

Maybe he can sell British secrets to the Taliban for a couple Mets tickets.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 7, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Translation: We are jealous and we hate your upbeat attitude towards your own country.



I am American !


And we need to acknowledge that our Allies help bring victory in World War II.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Calling America best really isn't that far fetched, its definitely one of the best places to live in the world. In fact pretty much anything in the Southern Hemisphere and most of the countries between Japan and Russia and below Europe are places where most sensible people wouldn't choose to live.



America is not the worst place....but like Xyloxi mentioned:  The distance between the rich and poor is much larger in this country compared to much of Europe where their government at least has more social programs to help with the struggling working class.

Not to mention how we still give the rich unnecessary tax cuts when they have more than enough to pay for more taxes.  I find it ironic how the politicians here keep saying that we must lower the debt and yet....they refuse to input higher taxes for the rich as one of the solutions.

We still do not have universal health care like Europe (although, Obama's plan is a first step: it still lacks a public option due to the Senate's refusal to pass it).


Every country has its flaws: but a country with more social programs seem to make its citzens happier.

America did not even make it to the top ten happiest countries in the world; whereas several of those places were taken by European countries instead.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Feb 7, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> fieryfalcon....your American exceptionalism is the reason why the world views America with disdain.
> 
> 
> Yes, America played a huge part but the Soviets help made it easier for America to take the Nazis down because their cooperation with each other was the decisive factor!
> ...



I disagree and even if its true I think American exceptionalism is important for the future of the world because America is exceptional.  We have a lot to teach the world about how to build lasting institutions that promote liberty, modernity, technological progress, tolerance, economic growth, and other political, economic, and cultural attributes that drive humanity's progress.  

America is the best in the world but the good news is that anyone else can achieve what we have.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 7, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> I disagree and even if its true I think *American exceptionalism is important for the future of the world because America is exceptional.*  We have a lot to teach the world about how to build lasting institutions that promote liberty, modernity, technological progress, tolerance, economic growth, and other political, economic, and cultural attributes that drive humanity's progress.
> 
> *America is the best in the world* but the good news is that anyone else can achieve what we have.






Yeah, continue with your deluded posts !


It is posts like these that give Americans bad names.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 8, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> I disagree and even if its true I think American exceptionalism is important for the future of the world because America is exceptional.  We have a lot to teach the world about how to build lasting institutions that promote liberty, modernity, technological progress, tolerance, economic growth, and other political, economic, and cultural attributes that drive humanity's progress.
> 
> America is the best in the world but the good news is that anyone else can achieve what we have.



I don't have lot of time ths morning but i just want to say this. You know what made the greatness of the US . It abilities to learn from the rest of the world. Now you just like how the European were in the past. Your confidence in your superiority blind you from the reality.


----------



## Cherieosaurus (Feb 8, 2011)

I cannot stand 80% of Americans, 90% of American Government.  I don't think you can blame this all on Obama though, people.  You may think he's "The most powerful guy in the world," but the truth is, strings are being pulled by a group of people, not just a single guy. 

However, I do agree this is a super dick move. 

I need to get out of this country.  The Red white and blue necks are really starting to turn this country into a tard-topia.


----------

