terrorist

[breakdown]

terrorist: a person who uses violent activity to achieve a religious, political, or ideological goal.

the puritans: killed indigenous americans because they were viewed as savages by not converting to christianity.

George Washington instructed his generals to attack the Iroquois and "lay waste all the settlements ...that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed", and not to "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected". He likened Indians to wolves "both being beasts of prey, tho’ they differ in shape". He declared that the Indians must be forced west of the Mississippi, and any remaining must be broken by force. Jefferson, great democrat and philanthropist, also changed his tune during wars. He repeatedly recommended either the root-and-branch destruction of hostile tribes or a decisive effort to drive them beyond the Mississippi: "nothing is more desirable than total suppression of Savage Insolence and Cruelties"; "This then is the season for driving them off"; and their "ferocious barbarities justified extermination". Of course, neither of them ever spoke about the main British enemy in exterminist language. They were civilized white men. It is interesting that though most Americans today know that these two Founding Fathers were also slave-owners, their relations with Indians remain unknown.

Andrew Jackson has left a more ambiguous reputation. He did extend the franchise to all white males. On the other hand, he was renowned as an Indian Fighter. The terminology reminds me of the euphemisms we find written by superior officers in the files of SS men proficient in a more recent genocide. "Hard-hitting" does not quite convey the sense of the mass murder he was perpetrating. Jackson inveighed on other occasions against "deceitfull" and "unrelenting barbarians" -- "The banditti ought to be swept from the face of the earth" . He boasted "I have on all occasions preserved the scalps of my killed". In principle he believed "fear is better than love with an indian". He urged his soldiers to kill women and children. Not to do so would be like pursuing "a wolf in the hamocks without knowing first where her den and whelps were". He claimed his Removal Act of 1830 was an act of generosity, yet around 10,000 Creek, 4,000 Cherokee and 4,000 Choctaw died along the infamous "Trail of Tears".

Source(s): Google

[Havok]

another self-hating american is see. Or perhaps not even american?

[Armor]

another self-hating american is see. Or perhaps not even american?

Eh, don't feel like reading that wall of text up there but I'm not too enthused with America atm myself...

[MadAce]

What's your point?

People are assholes? Wow; what a discovery...

[duece]

another self-hating american is see. Or perhaps not even american?

So to be a proud American you have to pretend it didn't happen?

[Chicboy]

What's your point?
People are assholes? Wow; what a discovery...

Do you actually like anything or anybody MadAce? We all hear your strong opinionated views and for the most part disagreeing with 99% of things. I for one would like to read a post, where for once, you say "fantastic" or "sublime" or something along those lines. Is there anything you dont have an opinion on?

[Moleman]

Is there anything you dont have an opinion on?

No is the short but entirely accurate answer!!

[MadAce]

What's your point?
People are assholes? Wow; what a discovery...

Do you actually like anything or anybody MadAce? We all hear your strong opinionated views and for the most part disagreeing with 99% of things. I for one would like to read a post, where for once, you say "fantastic" or "sublime" or something along those lines. Is there anything you dont have an opinion on?

Ah, the eternal curse cast upon the realist. To be found cynical and/or bitter.

Shame the search function of the new forums is so very limited (it said my name was "too common"...) so I can't disprove your accusation in depth.

Tho I'll quote myself:

I express my admiration for Mahatma Ghandi (while at the same time expressing an opinion on "Western Civilization"). So I like Ghandi.

Mahatma Ghandi.

Interviewer: "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
Ghandi: "What I think of Western civilization? I think it's a great idea."
Priceless.

Also note that in the movie reviews thread I protected the honor of Mr Keanu Reeves by naming a few better than bad movies in which he played.

I also voiced my appreciation for my home country a few times.

I also said Ace/Starwynd was right. That should earn my the Nobel prize for "Nice Guy".

I opened up about my single most favo comic on the internet: http://www.viruscomix.com/perspective%20man.jpg


I expressed my love for this little cute thing. (While at the same time offering to assimilate everyone)

.com/albums/h292/julia414/jandj/thmeandjulia.jpg[/img]

Little one

This is the cutest thing ever. Oh and the eyes are telling me to assimilate everyone. Is this normal?

I told people (by liking a Biblic quote) to love their enemies.

Rom 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

This rules.

BTW, terrorism is a failure in terms of killing people and doing damage. But they sure do make people insane, self-destructive animals.

So I'm actually really nice and friendly and often positive about things.
Also, my opnions are immensely nuanced.
Thirdly, there's plenty of things I don't have an opinion about. Although I easily could.

[breakdown]

another self-hating american is see. Or perhaps not even american?

Would you rather ignore, accept, or repeat the past? What does our history have to do with being a self hating american?

Empathy towards your enemies can be enlightening. WWHD? (What would Hunter do?)

[Chicboy]

Shame the search function of the new forums is so very limited (it said my name was "too common"...) so I can't disprove your accusation in depth.

Wasnt an accusation as such, merely an observation

I also voiced my appreciation for my home country a few times.

Love for your country, starting to see a different side to you now

I expressed my love for this little cute thing. (While at the same time offering to assimilate everyone)

MadAce wrote:
Major.Arse wrote:
.com/albums/h292/julia414/jandj/thmeandjulia.jpg[/img]

Little one

This is the cutest thing ever. Oh and the eyes are telling me to assimilate everyone. Is this normal?

You had to spoil the nice touch because of your bi-polar dissorder

So I'm actually really nice and friendly and often positive about things.

That part is surely a lil bit debatable, maybe should have a poll or something, get feedback from the community

Thirdly, there's plenty of things I don't have an opinion about. Although I easily could.

Nearly said "phew" there, but judging by the way you ended the sentence, I gather that you do infact have views and opinions on EVERYTHING, but choose not to share them.
This is fun, anybody else want to have their say on trying to dissect MadAce's psyche? Have I missed anything out? This is maybe a job for a professional right enough

[Havok]

another self-hating american is see. Or perhaps not even american?

Would you rather ignore, accept, or repeat the past? What does our history have to do with being a self hating american?

Empathy towards your enemies can be enlightening. WWHD? (What would Hunter do?)

I accept the past for what it is, both the good and the bad. The wars with the majority of the Indian tribes were wrong in the cruelty the US government and troops showed to them. However if the US had not expanded beyond the Appalachains, thinkk about how different world history would be today. Without the US several inventions we take for granted today never would have happened, including the: elevator, telephone, telegraph, air brake, airplanes, submarines, too many more to list. In addition, the entire continent of Europe would be speaking German right now, without US intervention Germany would probably have won WWI and definitely WW II. Japan would have conquered China, Indochina, Dutch East Indies, and Australia unopposed, these countries would be living under one of the most sadistic regimes in history. In addition, the US would not have been the first country to develop nuclear weapons. That being said, who knows if this alternative country would have used as much restraint as the US has in their use?

Just some things to think about, you can condemn the founders for their beliefs at the time, and compare them to terrorists like bin Laden, but if they hadnt, history would have been unimaginably changed, and we probably wouldnt even be having this conversation ( the internet was developed by the US military FYI).

[akito]

actually terrorism was redefined shortly after 9-11 to include "the use, threatened use, or planned use of force or violence". force OR violence. meaning they are two different things. two of the deffinitions for force are "a group" and "a logical argument". this means that in the united states at this very moment it is against the law to use, threaten to use, or plan to use a logical argument to effect social, economic, or political change or to belong to any group that does so.

this post not only makes me a terrorist, but by belonging to the starport community, all readers as well.

the same set of bills/executive orders that established this redefintion also gave the president the power to declare "enemy combatants" who can be denied all rights (including those normally applicable to citizens and pows). this means that anyone at any time can be held indeffinetly without official charges, actual evidence, or any legal consultation ( and under "enhanced interrogation") for as long as the president feels neccesary. so when they finally start enforcing this nightmare legislation, don't be surprised when i confess to shooting abraham lincoln or anything else just to keep them from analy raping my children with battery acid in front of me. (google that torture method it was in the mainstream news a few years back)

[MadAce]

Shame the search function of the new forums is so very limited (it said my name was "too common"...) so I can't disprove your accusation in depth.

Wasnt an accusation as such, merely an observation

If I'd been a bad guy I would've interpreted as an accusation.

I also voiced my appreciation for my home country a few times.

Love for your country, starting to see a different side to you now

It's not love. Love is irrational (tho it of course has a perfectly rational biological basis).
My affinity with my country is funded with perfectly rational arguments.

I expressed my love for this little cute thing. (While at the same time offering to assimilate everyone)

MadAce wrote:
Major.Arse wrote:
.com/albums/h292/julia414/jandj/thmeandjulia.jpg[/img]

Little one

This is the cutest thing ever. Oh and the eyes are telling me to assimilate everyone. Is this normal?

You had to spoil the nice touch because of your bi-polar dissorder

My mood doesn't undergo episodes (apart from the usual ones brought forth by external factors).
I don't see why you had to insult people who really have bipolar disorder. I also don't understand why you had to annoy me by typing "lol".

So I'm actually really nice and friendly and often positive about things.

That part is surely a lil bit debatable, maybe should have a poll or something, get feedback from the community

Oh yes. I really love the democratic process of "polling". Haven't you noticed (or "observed") how fond I am of democratic stuff? It would really make my day viewing a skewed version of an opinion of people who I hold in no esteem whatsoever.

And while we're at it, why not ask the people whether the world is flat or not...

Thirdly, there's plenty of things I don't have an opinion about. Although I easily could.

Nearly said "phew" there, but judging by the way you ended the sentence, I gather that you do infact have views and opinions on EVERYTHING, but choose not to share them.

No. I COULD have an opinion. But I just don't form one on many thing. It's nhot that I HAVE an opinion, I DON'T. But I could have.

I could improv a 4 hour monologue on the mating rituals of a Platypus without knowing anything about the animal. And I could express thousands of opinions about the darn animal. But I just won't.

Constantly forming opinions about things without thought is just pointless. So I won't. But I could.

This is fun, anybody else want to have their say on trying to dissect MadAce's psyche? Have I missed anything out? This is maybe a job for a professional right enough

Yes, any other people with no psyche of their own who feel the urge to dissect mine? Apparently it's interesting enough to cater to more than one person.

[Grimoire]

another self-hating american is see. Or perhaps not even american?

Would you rather ignore, accept, or repeat the past? What does our history have to do with being a self hating american?

Empathy towards your enemies can be enlightening. WWHD? (What would Hunter do?)

I accept the past for what it is, both the good and the bad. The wars with the majority of the Indian tribes were wrong in the cruelty the US government and troops showed to them. However if the US had not expanded beyond the Appalachains, thinkk about how different world history would be today. Without the US several inventions we take for granted today never would have happened, including the: elevator, telephone, telegraph, air brake, airplanes, submarines, too many more to list. In addition, the entire continent of Europe would be speaking German right now, without US intervention Germany would probably have won WWI and definitely WW II. Japan would have conquered China, Indochina, Dutch East Indies, and Australia unopposed, these countries would be living under one of the most sadistic regimes in history. In addition, the US would not have been the first country to develop nuclear weapons. That being said, who knows if this alternative country would have used as much restraint as the US has in their use?

Just some things to think about, you can condemn the founders for their beliefs at the time, and compare them to terrorists like bin Laden, but if they hadnt, history would have been unimaginably changed, and we probably wouldnt even be having this conversation ( the internet was developed by the US military FYI).

Could you please tell us where you went to school? I just want to know because when I have children, I don't want them to turn out to be that stupid.

P.S. Madace, you are the man.

[MadAce]

P.S. Madace, you are the man.

Oh no! Are you saying all other men are gone? What a disaster! Now the job to impregnate all the women rests solely on my shoulders... What a burden.

But I will do my duty to ensure the survival of mankind.

[Chettoes121]

The founders of America aren't particularly the same as today Americans are today..
Im pretty sure if i showed u something donkey holish you country did ud see your country as terrorists too

[Havok]

The founders of America aren't particularly the same as today Americans are today..
Im pretty sure if i showed u something donkey holish you country did ud see your country as terrorists too

/agree

For all you Belgians out there, we can start with King Leopold II's treatment of Congo and its people.
For the Dutch, lets not forget Indonesia.

Basically all you european colonial powers hands are just as dirty as americas may be, some of you even more so. get off your high horse.

[MadAce]

The founders of America aren't particularly the same as today Americans are today..
Im pretty sure if i showed u something donkey holish you country did ud see your country as terrorists too

/agree

For all you Belgians out there, we can start with King Leopold II's treatment of Congo and its people.
For the Dutch, lets not forget Indonesia.

Basically all you european colonial powers hands are just as dirty as americas may be, some of you even more so. get off your high horse.

What's your point about Leopold II and his treatent of Colonial Congo?

1: Belgians don't glorify their "founding fathers". On the contrary. Often they show an immesne lack of respect. Even to guys like Albert I.
2: We're perfectly aware we screwed up and were paternalistic assholes.
3: We're less aware (I know I am tho) Belgians in general are racist assholes.

[Crimson]

another self-hating american is see. Or perhaps not even american?

Would you rather ignore, accept, or repeat the past? What does our history have to do with being a self hating american?

Empathy towards your enemies can be enlightening. WWHD? (What would Hunter do?)

I accept the past for what it is, both the good and the bad. The wars with the majority of the Indian tribes were wrong in the cruelty the US government and troops showed to them. However if the US had not expanded beyond the Appalachains, thinkk about how different world history would be today. Without the US several inventions we take for granted today never would have happened, including the: elevator, telephone, telegraph, air brake, airplanes, submarines, too many more to list. In addition, the entire continent of Europe would be speaking German right now, without US intervention Germany would probably have won WWI and definitely WW II. Japan would have conquered China, Indochina, Dutch East Indies, and Australia unopposed, these countries would be living under one of the most sadistic regimes in history. In addition, the US would not have been the first country to develop nuclear weapons. That being said, who knows if this alternative country would have used as much restraint as the US has in their use?

Just some things to think about, you can condemn the founders for their beliefs at the time, and compare them to terrorists like bin Laden, but if they hadnt, history would have been unimaginably changed, and we probably wouldnt even be having this conversation ( the internet was developed by the US military FYI).

Please don't use the world war arguments. America has no right to that. Start chronologically, while the Entente was fighting the Triple Alliance, America willing sold weapons to both sides (example, why did the Lusatania sink so fast?), Secondly the American entry was marked after the worst periods of war for the Entente side, Following Verdun and the battle of the Somme. Extensive mobilisation of the American military force on the Western Front only happened after the Battle of Paschendaele and was felt after the German Offensive leading up to the second Battle of the Marne.

So what conclusion can you draw up from this. America waited for the Colonial Great Powers to wear each other down. Two of the Powers Britain and Germany being miles ahead of the rest in terms of pre-war industry and military production. France which was going through national revival from the removal of Monarchical rule and Bismark's third lightning war. Three powers that were hinging on destruction (Austro-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire). This is evident in the Treaties after the war were America took a prominent role with the least casualties, carving up Europe in true Imperialist fashion. Results that are still echoed today. And resulting in an economic boom after the war that would set up America as the first economy in the world.

The inter-war America, of which its first steps were to dislocate itself from world politics (bar from expanding its military to protect its interests in the pacific), and leave the dis-organized and damaged Europe to deal with the results of the after war treaties it had so such supported. Getting fat of the returns from loans and resources gained from the war, slowly mis-managing them leading to an economic crisis that would have repercussions in Europe. Due to the fact that by now a lot of the European nations were tied in into America through various forms of "aid" during and after the war. While politics were begining to become extreme in Europe and Both Britain and France pleaded for some form of guidance and support from their "greatest ally", America stood idly by watching the coming of the storm.

Ohh and a quick word on the Russian revolution, as far as i know Czechoslovakia sent more troops than America into Russian to support the White Russians. So the one power left un-touched by the effect of the first world war could not even be bothered to left a finger to allow Russian an opportunity as a former ally? Or was it easier to watch a rival in the pacific be brought to its knee's and have its culture, economy and population culled by wars and later dictators. Where is this so-called famous Wilsonian Nationalism i so hear Americans preach.

Now on the second world war. I'll admit I'm less critical of the American Politics on this. The same tactic was used as the First World War. Emphasis had shifted from making money from the wealthy to know owning the means of how the wealthy are wealthy. Basically the destruction of the Colonial Empires and their monopoly on those markets. Britain may have been saved by the loans given out from the American government, but at a result of its empire. Russian was given aid at the right time, when it began to turn the German forces following 2 years of meat-grinder action. Only Japan, which out of the Great powers of world during the first world had not gotten itself involved in the European war, and through militarism had achievement close parity to the American Navy. Though being able to play a similar game as America (the Neutral power) its politics were heavily entrenched in military greatness, born out of tradition, and the need for natural resources. Two things that have never truly effected American politics.

Leading on to my next point. I am not critical of the American during this period, however i am critical of the foreign policy used by the American Government. The manner in which the American troops acted on the pacific and European front was exceptional. The American soldier was the voice of empathy and mercy amongst its allies. To some degree not tainted as deeply by stereotypical ideas and misconceived hatred of his enemies. Examples include bombing Japanese and European cities with chocolate and leaflets telling the population of a better alternative to war. Saving Japanese civilians from suicide born from their own nations propaganda concerning the west.

I feel that American Politics is defined by its refinement of European Politics developed from pragmatism, and unforeseen by the older powers. Using the tactic Britain employed during the Napoleonic Wars of watching mainland Europe rip itself to shreds and stunt its growth, only getting involved when its interests were under risk. And when victory was easily assured. Followed by cannibalization of the markets that had previously existed in Europe. Advancing the German goal of destroying the Colonial system, when it had realized that it could gain no more from it, and opening markets to trade with. Though this in no way excuses the loss of life suffered from sitting back in apathy and watching the world rips itself to bits, thats my beef with America.

This would lead America to becoming a power like no other. One were its last rival the embodiment of European failure would fail to compete with that of what Europe had exported and taught. The only issue with current American Politics is that since 1991 it has reached a situation like no other faced by Empires or nations of the past. Who is there left that we can compete with. The Romans had the barbarians, the British had the Russian and then ultimately the Germans, the Mongols had the combined weight of Europe and Asia assault it from both sides. So in the end the most complete victory ever achieved by a civilization will result in it inevitable downfall, and the rise of a another civilization that will grow without the mistakes of America. Look at the industrial era, Britain vs Germany. Classical world Rome vs all of the old classical civilizations. Japan vs China in the east.

To sum up in layman's terms what i've said about the world wars is something like this:

Grandfather has an argument with his son over the land they both own. The Grandfather is of course wealthier more successful over a very long time. But his son learning from his father mistakes has amassed himself a considerable amount of wealth. Though no as much as his father, but arrogant enough to believe that he should the same since he has more refined skills. The Grandfather who's influence has spread through the family encourages his Grandson to help him in this situation. But his Grandson in turn has developed at a fast pace and understands that he can challenge his fathers wealth through his Grandfathers thereby setting him up a player in the game. The grandfather who is weary from battling his sons wealth, influence and skill begins to rely on his Grandson. Slowly letting what he has slip without realizing. With the combined efforts of the prodigal grandson and the wise grandfather, the father has to admit defeat on certain terms that he hopes will favor him. But this does not happen, the Grandson absorbs elements of his fathers and Grandfathers wealth. This cripples the father and certain privileges are left to the Grandfather, while the wealth of the Grandson makes it own returns. Just repeat this again you got two world wars.

Well i enjoyed that block of text. I know that only two people will end up reading this, Madace and Mcgrod. But i kinda miss some of the walls of texts this forum used to have. So i'm reminiscing old times

[MadAce]

Damn. You knew I was going to read that...

Sadly enough I don't have the time to type a reply.

But I can summarize it:

The (conquered no-less) Chinese killed the Mongol Empire. (and decadence, as always the ultimate empire killer)

The US isn't and wasn't an Empire. Due to sociological reasons. And some economic.
Terror Bombings *cough* Dresden *cough*, nukes, scientifically (and otherwise) donkey-kicking Germans and the Russians (and no one else) almost "uniting" (the long lost dream) Europe = WW2.
US wins WW3 with an Argumentum ex silentio and a 50 year old, outdated since WW2 army and especially navy. Goes on not realizing they're sharing an umbilical cord with the rest of the world. Rest of the world shares the cord and not notices it either.

The Plebeian on the streetcorner waits for another war and is dissapointed he doesn't seem be getting his share of gladiator in the 21th century.

[Havok]

The founders of America aren't particularly the same as today Americans are today..
Im pretty sure if i showed u something donkey holish you country did ud see your country as terrorists too

/agree

For all you Belgians out there, we can start with King Leopold II's treatment of Congo and its people.
For the Dutch, lets not forget Indonesia.

Basically all you european colonial powers hands are just as dirty as americas may be, some of you even more so. get off your high horse.

What's your point about Leopold II and his treatent of Colonial Congo?

1: Belgians don't glorify their "founding fathers". On the contrary. Often they show an immesne lack of respect. Even to guys like Albert I.
2: We're perfectly aware we screwed up and were paternalistic assholes.
3: We're less aware (I know I am tho) Belgians in general are racist assholes.

i guess i was a little vague in my previous post

my point was that according to breakdown's original definition of terrorist, you can go anywhere in the world and find nearly any culture or society who has engaged in activities that fall under this description, so rather than continously pointing fingers at one another, countries who say they are past this behavior and condemn it, should possibly look into ending it worldwide. Chinese treatment of Tibetans, wars of genocide in Burma, Sudan, Rwanda, etc

[Havok]

Crimson, you dont know how excited i was when i saw your post rather than just spamming with namecalling as so many other people on here do, you actually responded with an intelligent, and well thought out response! And there are large parts of your argument i actually agree with too.


As for your beef with america however, why was it america's job to intervene? America had no interests there, no alliances with any european nation, American foreign policy before both world wars was one of isolationism. Before WW I, the international system was a multipolar system, America had not yet even come close to achieving the hegemony it enjoys today. With power comes responsibiliy, but America was not even considered a power at this point, the 'Great Powers' consisted of Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and the decadent Austria-Hungary,not until proving itself in WWI did America achieve this status. I agree with you that the Lusitania was carrying arms, and thus believe the American public's outrage following its sinking to be retarded, especially since the German embassy had published warnings to the passengers that they believed it was carrying arms, and they might be in danger. Additionally, there has been recent evidence that the infamous 'Zimmermann Note' was a forgery concocted by the British foreign office, not a authentic German communique. With these two things in mind, i dont believe America should have ever gotten involved in WW I.

I agree with you completely about the Russian Revolution, America should have done more, but politicians would have had a hard time convincing the American public so, and also the Congress, back when they were actually involved with war-making lol.

Again in WW II, America had no interest in the conflict other than perhaps idealogical ones. The war was largely a result of breakup of the territory of the German empire,and the harsh conditions of the Versailles treay imposed by the French most notably, but also the Brits, and Belgians. Both of which President Wilson was against i may add. It wasnt until Pearl Harbor that America had an interest in the war, but even then only against Japan. If Germany hadnt honored its alliance with Japan and never declared war on us, i wonder if we would have even gotten involved in Europe, or just annhilated Japan and been done with it?

[Jwilson6]

Please don't use the world war arguments. America has no right to that. Start chronologically, while the Entente was fighting the Triple Alliance, America willing sold weapons to both sides (example, why did the Lusatania sink so fast?), Secondly the American entry was marked after the worst periods of war for the Entente side, Following Verdun and the battle of the Somme. Extensive mobilisation of the American military force on the Western Front only happened after the Battle of Paschendaele and was felt after the German Offensive leading up to the second Battle of the Marne.

So what conclusion can you draw up from this. America waited for the Colonial Great Powers to wear each other down. Two of the Powers Britain and Germany being miles ahead of the rest in terms of pre-war industry and military production. France which was going through national revival from the removal of Monarchical rule and Bismark's third lightning war. Three powers that were hinging on destruction (Austro-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire). This is evident in the Treaties after the war were America took a prominent role with the least casualties, carving up Europe in true Imperialist fashion. Results that are still echoed today. And resulting in an economic boom after the war that would set up America as the first economy in the world.

The U.S. had no interest in WWI because it didn't affect us, it was in Europe and prior to WWI the U.S. was still retaining an isolationist policy and only interfering in international affairs when it affected the western hemisphere, specifically European intervention in the western hemisphere (if you recall the Zimmerman note was the tipping point that finally got us involved). And our allies that were in the war officially were there in support of THEIR allies and unofficially they were trying to gain new territory. And as for the U.S. Role in the treaties after the war, the U.S. played such a large role for two reasons, we were the only nation involved in the war left with the power and the will to enforce them, and because the central powers requested it.

The inter-war America, of which its first steps were to dislocate itself from world politics (bar from expanding its military to protect its interests in the pacific), and leave the dis-organized and damaged Europe to deal with the results of the after war treaties it had so such supported. Getting fat of the returns from loans and resources gained from the war, slowly mis-managing them leading to an economic crisis that would have repercussions in Europe. Due to the fact that by now a lot of the European nations were tied in into America through various forms of "aid" during and after the war. While politics were beginning to become extreme in Europe and Both Britain and France pleaded for some form of guidance and support from their "greatest ally", America stood idly by watching the coming of the storm.

The U.S. can't be blaimed for the damage caused by the treaties. The U.S. fought against many of the punishments forced upon the central powers after the war but the European countries forced them through. And as for America standing idly by, I don't see how we would have been obligated in any way to sort out the mess that the European countries made for themselves. Especially since many people in America were still in favor of isolationism, and how can you criticize us for our involvement in the treaty and then criticize us for not getting involved in post-war politics.

Ohh and a quick word on the Russian revolution, as far as i know Czechoslovakia sent more troops than America into Russian to support the White Russians. So the one power left un-touched by the effect of the first world war could not even be bothered to left a finger to allow Russian an opportunity as a former ally? Or was it easier to watch a rival in the pacific be brought to its knee's and have its culture, economy and population culled by wars and later dictators. Where is this so-called famous Wilsonian Nationalism i so hear Americans preach.

If you are seriously going to criticize us for that, then you have given up your right to criticize us on any other issue of U.S. military interference in foreign affairs. Besides, Czechoslovakia borders Russia, they sent more troops because they had to.

[McGrod]

America is the greatest thing ever. The soldiers are the bravest ever. The US Airforce is the most intelligent ever. The grasp of history is the most balanced and untamperd with ever it even borders with the black power group that has found conclusive evidence that Eurpoe was ruled by the black man and the medieval period has been coverd up by the evil white man. (Edward the Black Prince was part of the conclusive evidence it was a great show one of the Louis Theroux ones or some name like that).
I am just so overwhelmed by the marveloussness of such a great nation and there presidents are all an inspiration. (note in ENgland we generally hate all prime ministers no matter what they do).
The tv shows and films depict the 'odd foriegner' types so well and I am sooo happy that they dont border on racism.
The professionalism of the CIA and FBI working witheachother is something I truly wish we had in our workplaces in little old England or should that be the yourapeeon workplace?
So in conclusion I think everything AMerica does is fantastic cos hey 'My fellow Americans!' we cant all be wrong!

[Crimson]

I'm entering double post territory here, but i'll try and fill it out in a single post if you can read through it

Crimson, you dont know how excited i was when i saw your post rather than just spamming with namecalling as so many other people on here do, you actually responded with an intelligent, and well thought out response! And there are large parts of your argument i actually agree with too.


As for your beef with america however, why was it america's job to intervene? America had no interests there, no alliances with any european nation, American foreign policy before both world wars was one of isolationism. Before WW I, the international system was a multipolar system, America had not yet even come close to achieving the hegemony it enjoys today. With power comes responsibiliy, but America was not even considered a power at this point, the 'Great Powers' consisted of Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and the decadent Austria-Hungary,not until proving itself in WWI did America achieve this status. I agree with you that the Lusitania was carrying arms, and thus believe the American public's outrage following its sinking to be retarded, especially since the German embassy had published warnings to the passengers that they believed it was carrying arms, and they might be in danger. Additionally, there has been recent evidence that the infamous 'Zimmermann Note' was a forgery concocted by the British foreign office, not a authentic German communique. With these two things in mind, i dont believe America should have ever gotten involved in WW I.

I agree with you completely about the Russian Revolution, America should have done more, but politicians would have had a hard time convincing the American public so, and also the Congress, back when they were actually involved with war-making lol.

I think theres been a slight mis-interpretation of what i said, but thats what makes debates fun, the whole dialogue process.

Starting off my beef is not directed entirely at the American people, in so much as the politics behind the actions of the state from a political view. What annoys me is a misconception of the role that America played in the both World Wars. The idea of a saviour to fade out the real intentions of why America went to war. I feel that, as in all nations, certain concepts are removed at education or within the popular circle. That is why i gave you the European side of the war, maybe in a very cynical manner, but in hopes that it can start to develope some different ideas of what you have maybe been taught or read in your private time.

Also i would like point out that the whole philosophy of turning points is pointless to some degree within the society we live in. A turning point is merely a catalyst to propagate something that is going to happen. so maybe my use of the Lusitania might have been chosen wrongly, or understand differently from the context i put it in. I merely used that example to show that America, even with Isolationist principles and some degree of alliances, was still using the war to make money. Fair enough on the argument that America wasn't at the time a major a player as the colonial powers. But it is also this that makes the argument that America won the first world war for the Entente so condescending.

Again to re-literate that i was not saying that it was America's job to enter the war. What i am saying was that it was inevitable that America was going to enter war, or play a part. I just don't agree with the view that was said earlier.

To answer your opinion on the WW2. Before any involvement by the US, Britain had already solidified its position as untakable to the German war machine. The battle of Britain marked an end to German superiority over British air-space. Not by numbers of planes shot down, but by terms of logistics. At the start of the Battle Germany was winning with 10/1 ace pilots and 60-70 % more planes and 200 planes being constructed a day. Britain had no chance if it was continued in the manner it started. The decision by Hitler to bomb London and to centralize the efforts of the luftwaffe directly to that opened up the country for the production of aircraft. By the end of the conflict britain was producing 500-600 planes a day with the direct premise to oppose an attacking airforce. They were destributed in small squadrons which meant damage done by bombings was minimalised. And the luftwaffe had lost a large number of its trained pilots which were shot down above Britain, thereby decreasing the ratio of fighter pilots in British favour. And then the German invasion of Russia.

With the airspace secured, the threat was submarine warfare. Which had come close in 1942 to putting Britain out of the war. But previous experience with submarines (WW1) and the use of the radar coupled with air supremecy began to take a toll on the submarine fleet. I will add that a significant amount of ships both merchant and military were LOANED out by the American government, for which returns on the debt have been payed off in 2006. A similar situation would have happened with the American civil war and the British finances in the South.

But the main answer is Russia. Germany pulled a very similar mistake to Napoleon, and through arrogance under-estimated the winter. The meat-grinder that would become the eastern front would define were the war went. This was decided by 1942. Russia had stopped the German attack from advancing. Hitler had taken command of the military after the Battle of Moscow and in turn Stalin had relinquished power to his Generals. It is true that America supplied the aid that had kept Russia in the war. But i pose this question:

Even if Germany and America had not gone to war, would America have stopped aid to Russia or Britain?

Okay to Jwil's post:

The U.S. had no interest in WWI because it didn't affect us, it was in Europe and prior to WWI the U.S. was still retaining an isolationist policy and only interfering in international affairs when it affected the western hemisphere, specifically European intervention in the western hemisphere (if you recall the Zimmerman note was the tipping point that finally got us involved). And our allies that were in the war officially were there in support of THEIR allies and unofficially they were trying to gain new territory. And as for the U.S. Role in the treaties after the war, the U.S. played such a large role for two reasons, we were the only nation involved in the war left with the power and the will to enforce them, and because the central powers requested it.

As mentioned above, turning points at pointless, as catalyst when theres no fuel for it. Involvement in the war is similar to being at war with a nation. The Zimmerman note incident wasn't realistic, would you agree? How would Germany be able to keep its promise to Mexico even if it won the war? So what would the reason for America to go to war, a promise to made that realistically can't be fulfilled or disruption to perhaps the best access to trade that America has had in it history prior to the war. A similar reason to way Britain broke away from Glorious isolationism to form the basis of the entente.

My beef with the American involvement in the treaties. You'll find that even by the end of the war the Entente was still in a position to enforce the terms of the treaty. What i think is that you've mixed up the reason to why the Armistice was signed to that of the position of Germany during the treaty. The Armistice was signed when Germany realised that America had amassed a significant proportion of troops that MIGHT tip the balance of power away from Germany even if it held its defensive position. But most military tacticians at the time Field Marshal Hague, Ludendorff and Jofre all agreed that the war might last for a many more years. However, the collapse of Bulgaria, and the proximity of this to Istanbul threatened to open a second front on Germany from the Balkans. Also the Naval blockade from the British fleet had started to bleed Germany dry of resources. Now during the period of the treaties Germany had already began its process of de-militirization, its navy was interred in Scapa Flow and it had lost its gains in France (4/5 of the French steel production, 2/3 of the French coal mines).

I'll agree to some degree that the central powers welcomed this, well apart from Austro-hungary (which was torn apart by Wilson in his idea of self governing nations, well and turkey, but that was more France and Britain), However you must remember why the Germans even entered the playing field. they thought that they had had a good position why the negotiating happened. This was not so. America was not harsh to them in terms of land, reparations or even accountability. What America did was to gain a chunk of their patents and trade routes. Effectively robbing them of a form of livelihood. Even though the damage done to Germany by France and Britain was severe, they were ones that could be overcome to some degree. But when you leave someone starving with the need to be supported by none-other than yourself, you create a far deeper reaching problem. and thats why i disagree America's Isolationism after the war. You can't cause so much impact, make so much profit and then turn around and ignore. If that was going to happen then America should have renounced its role in the negotiations to lesser level and merely seek out reparations and income from the loans.

If you are seriously going to criticize us for that, then you have given up your right to criticize us on any other issue of U.S. military interference in foreign affairs. Besides, Czechoslovakia borders Russia, they sent more troops because they had to.

Okay I'll accept that only if you renounce American involvement post World War Two.

Ok back to my point: American justification for their part in both World Wars.

Were they benevolent and wished to bring save Europe from speaking German P?

Or was it ulterior motives, that would allow it to become the most powerful state in the world?

That Havok is my beef with the American conecpt of the World Wars.

[McGrod]

I still think we should have thrown our chips in with the Russians at some point

[Crimson]

We did in Finland during 1940. Firstly due to Finnish sovereignty and secondly was to stimulate Russia to join us. Don't ask me why, we were desperate. France smashed or getting smashed at an alarming rate. No allies to call upon, anything seemed game, even the Vichy French fleet.

[Jwilson6]

The U.S. had no interest in WWI because it didn't affect us, it was in Europe and prior to WWI the U.S. was still retaining an isolationist policy and only interfering in international affairs when it affected the western hemisphere, specifically European intervention in the western hemisphere (if you recall the Zimmerman note was the tipping point that finally got us involved). And our allies that were in the war officially were there in support of THEIR allies and unofficially they were trying to gain new territory. And as for the U.S. Role in the treaties after the war, the U.S. played such a large role for two reasons, we were the only nation involved in the war left with the power and the will to enforce them, and because the central powers requested it.

As mentioned above, turning points at pointless, as catalyst when theres no fuel for it. Involvement in the war is similar to being at war with a nation. The Zimmerman note incident wasn't realistic, would you agree? How would Germany be able to keep its promise to Mexico even if it won the war? So what would the reason for America to go to war, a promise to made that realistically can't be fulfilled or disruption to perhaps the best access to trade that America has had in it history prior to the war. A similar reason to way Britain broke away from Glorious isolationism to form the basis of the entente.

My beef with the American involvement in the treaties. You'll find that even by the end of the war the Entente was still in a position to enforce the terms of the treaty. What i think is that you've mixed up the reason to why the Armistice was signed to that of the position of Germany during the treaty. The Armistice was signed when Germany realised that America had amassed a significant proportion of troops that MIGHT tip the balance of power away from Germany even if it held its defensive position. But most military tacticians at the time Field Marshal Hague, Ludendorff and Jofre all agreed that the war might last for a many more years. However, the collapse of Bulgaria, and the proximity of this to Istanbul threatened to open a second front on Germany from the Balkans. Also the Naval blockade from the British fleet had started to bleed Germany dry of resources. Now during the period of the treaties Germany had already began its process of de-militirization, its navy was interred in Scapa Flow and it had lost its gains in France (4/5 of the French steel production, 2/3 of the French coal mines).

I'll agree to some degree that the central powers welcomed this, well apart from Austro-hungary (which was torn apart by Wilson in his idea of self governing nations, well and turkey, but that was more France and Britain), However you must remember why the Germans even entered the playing field. they thought that they had had a good position why the negotiating happened. This was not so. America was not harsh to them in terms of land, reparations or even accountability. What America did was to gain a chunk of their patents and trade routes. Effectively robbing them of a form of livelihood. Even though the damage done to Germany by France and Britain was severe, they were ones that could be overcome to some degree. But when you leave someone starving with the need to be supported by none-other than yourself, you create a far deeper reaching problem. and thats why i disagree America's Isolationism after the war. You can't cause so much impact, make so much profit and then turn around and ignore. If that was going to happen then America should have renounced its role in the negotiations to lesser level and merely seek out reparations and income from the loans.

No I'm not confusing anything with the armistice, Germany had hoped that it would recieve the terms of surrender set forth by Wilson's fourteen points plan. They didn't expect that they would have to give up as much as they did. And I can't believe that your going to lay the blame for the horrible conditions after WWI on missing patents, nevermind that France and Britain completely destroyed its industry and tore apart its empire, even land that belonged to germany before the war, and humiliated the german people by blaming them for the war, and making them pay a massive war debt that they never would've been able to live up to.

If you are seriously going to criticize us for that, then you have given up your right to criticize us on any other issue of U.S. military interference in foreign affairs. Besides, Czechoslovakia borders Russia, they sent more troops because they had to.

Okay I'll accept that only if you renounce American involvement post World War Two.

Ok back to my point: American justification for their part in both World Wars.

Were they benevolent and wished to bring save Europe from speaking German P?

Or was it ulterior motives, that would allow it to become the most powerful state in the world?

That Havok is my beef with the American conecpt of the World Wars.

America didn't get involved in either of the World Wars looking to be a World Power. If France, Britain, and our other allies hadn't begged us and manipulated us into getting involved we never would have.

[Havok]

I'm entering double post territory here, but i'll try and fill it out in a single post if you can read through it

To answer your opinion on the WW2. Before any involvement by the US, Britain had already solidified its position as untakable to the German war machine. The battle of Britain marked an end to German superiority over British air-space. Not by numbers of planes shot down, but by terms of logistics. At the start of the Battle Germany was winning with 10/1 ace pilots and 60-70 % more planes and 200 planes being constructed a day. Britain had no chance if it was continued in the manner it started. The decision by Hitler to bomb London and to centralize the efforts of the luftwaffe directly to that opened up the country for the production of aircraft. By the end of the conflict britain was producing 500-600 planes a day with the direct premise to oppose an attacking airforce. They were destributed in small squadrons which meant damage done by bombings was minimalised. And the luftwaffe had lost a large number of its trained pilots which were shot down above Britain, thereby decreasing the ratio of fighter pilots in British favour. And then the German invasion of Russia.

With the airspace secured, the threat was submarine warfare. Which had come close in 1942 to putting Britain out of the war. But previous experience with submarines (WW1) and the use of the radar coupled with air supremecy began to take a toll on the submarine fleet. I will add that a significant amount of ships both merchant and military were LOANED out by the American government, for which returns on the debt have been payed off in 2006. A similar situation would have happened with the American civil war and the British finances in the South.

But the main answer is Russia. Germany pulled a very similar mistake to Napoleon, and through arrogance under-estimated the winter. The meat-grinder that would become the eastern front would define were the war went. This was decided by 1942. Russia had stopped the German attack from advancing. Hitler had taken command of the military after the Battle of Moscow and in turn Stalin had relinquished power to his Generals. It is true that America supplied the aid that had kept Russia in the war. But i pose this question:

Even if Germany and America had not gone to war, would America have stopped aid to Russia or Britain?

Yep, the outcome of the Battle of Britain, possibly the entire war is due to two things: 1. The British decoding of the Enigma machine at Bletchely Park, allowing the RAF to know where and when the German bombers would be, air patrols were unneeded because of this and Britain's superior radar. To the end of the war, the Germans believed their messages to be unbreakable, which if you read about the device you would understand why, the failure in the device was the human error, instead of putting in 6 random letters/numbers enigma operators constantly used sequences like 'HITLER' or that of their girlfriends 'SOPHIA', etc. In addition, the British codebreakers built the worlds first electronic computer to help them decode the messages of those operators who did follow protocol. The ability to read the German's mail helped Britain not only win the Battle of Britain, but also gave them victory in N. Africa against Rommel. 2. The failure of Hermann Goring to construct heavy strategic bombers. Even despite the decoding and radar, scores of German bombers were getting through to british cities, though the Heinkel He-111 bomber's 7000 lb payload was able to bring Britain to its knees, it was never able to deliver the knockout blow. If Germany had built these heavy bombers, its very possible the Battle could have ended differently.

No, America would not have stopped its aid, the production of war materials, becoming the 'Arsenal of Democracy' was a boost to the American economy, still recovering from the Depression. I've always pondered if Britain, China, and USSR could have survived the Axis onslaught without the lend lease shipments, i dont think they could have.

[McGrod]

Had the Battle of Britain been drawn out into a land battle the Germans BLitzkrieg would have failed I watched a documentary all about it and in 1974 there was also some 'war games' which proved they would have failed....dammit wheres Avit he can put these things in simple yet intelligent terms.

The USSR would have no way fallen to the Germans there tanks were simply to powerufl there manpower simply overwhelming and they have beards.