Nationalism - I Can't Stand it

[superbowlbound]

And I am confused how being born in a 1st world country doesn't make you better. You have better education, healthcare, freedom, etc. so you are significantly more likely to be a better person. Although I don't agree with flame wars between USA vs Europe (especially because one is a country, the other a continent) there is something to be said about people being born in better countries turning out to be more significant people.

Better in what respect? Healthier possibly, But are you seriously suggesting that someone is better for being born into a more privileged environment?

Tends to work out that way. don't confuse that with their life being worth more, I just simply mean because I was born in the US, I am more likely to be rich, famous, and impactful to the world than someone born in Mexico. So yes, someone born in a more privileged environment is likely to be a better person (yet again, better also doesn't mean nicer, or a family man, or any of those things, it simply means a more useful person to the world. And before you argue that, please look at 1st world inventions/inventors vs 3rd world inventions/inventors)

I really think that your definition of a 'better person' is wildly different from most people in this thread.

mmmkay, who contributes more to the Earth? Being a nice guy is cool and all, but who invented most of the worlds inventions, certainly not Central/South Americans, Africans, Middle Easterners, Eastern Europeans, or South East Asians. There is a reason for this...

And whats so special about you then? What have you invented? Anyone, given the chance has the capacity to be who he/she wants.

Yes, that's cool, but they aren't ergo 1st world countries are better. The argument isn't can good people come from anywhere, its does being born in a certain place make you better? and it does.

 

[renegade7]

Well unfortunately 99% of the time, the only Americans who care enough to get themselves onto TV are right-wing douchebags who think the Chinese will invade any day and we need to live in constant fear of the mess we created in the Middle East, though they won't admit it's probably our fault anyway :/

Damn vocal minority.

 

[NightHawk21]

I try not to generalize against other nations, but I do hate a lot of things about popular American patriotism.

WW2 for example, living in Canada, we tend to think of WW2 as this global tragedy in which countries from all over the world banded together like never before to deal with a situation.

Americans seem to believe it was all just about how Hitler was bad and how America saved the day, and how the whole event is just proof of how awesome America is. Even going as far as to rewrite history(Pearl Harbour), disregard the fact that they arrived two years late when everybody else jumped in right away, and of course pretend certain armies hardly existed.(Russia anyone?)

(Pearl Harbor lrn2spell)

SORRY, sorry. Anyways. I don't know any Americans who think we single-handedly won WWII (Although I will take credit for WWI, but another tangent). I am curious what this revision of Pearl HARBOR is though. And don't forget, we get a lot of credit for a lot of reasons. We supplied ALL of the allies with tanks, planes, and guns. The American generals were the only ones who ever had successful battle plans (remember market garden?).

The war didn't really get on track until D-Day, I mean Africa was cool and all, but NO ONE cared. D-Day happened after America joined and was planned by Americans. Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

I'm not crazy/stupid enough to think we were the single reason for Allied victory, but don't dare act like we were just a small puzzle piece, we did a larger share than any other allied country (inb4 Russia losing 20 million people, it was incompetent generals, poor supply, and outgunned soldiers). Finally the US did not enter WWII because of Hitler and the jews, we, along with most of the world, were very racist against Jewish people and didn't really care until Pearl HARBOR was bomber.

/rant

Maybe you should retake that history class friend. You didn't supply anyone out of the goodness of your heart, you sold weapons kinda like how you "supplied" the Egyptian "leaders" until they were just recently overthrown. The Canadians actually penetrated their beachhead first and went in deeper at the end of D-day. They were also the ones to defeat (along with the Polish and the Brits) Hitler's personal gaurd/regiment of the ss, the 12SS Panzer Division, and the Panzer Lehr Division (one of the most elite armored divisions). There was another fight whose name I can't remember or find but the Canadians managed to capture a ridge where everyone else failed. Oh and lets not forget the polish. They were one of if not the strongest of the "Russian" Divisions (even though they were given nothing to work with). The Poles were also instrumental in the Battle of Britian getting the highest kill count of any of the other Flying Divisions. So get your ego in check. Ya you guys help, but don't go stating you were some gigantic turning point or you did a LARGER share than everyone else. America didn't spend years fighting like everyone else and just came in at the end, when the Germans were already losing.

*sigh* Who wrote the D-Day battleplan? The Canadian soldiers?
Anywho the Americans did face the worst on the beaches of D-day, so its not really an accurate argument, but I said nothing about the soldiers themselves. And doesn't matter if we supplied/sold (in reality leased) we still were the biggest industrial power and supplied the other allies through the war. Canada and Britain may have had soldiers, but without guns, bullets, airplanes, bombs, and ships they can't do much, can they?

No, not the Canadian soldiers but a team led by the brits. Also leased/soled is irrelevent for the longest time, the US was content to sit and watch people be murdered while they made a quick buck. Also supplies were offered for over 1.5 years and and it still took you guys months after that to help out. So don't go acting like your country is some godsend sent to help everyone else.

 

[ConstantErasing]

Nationalism caused World War I you know. Yeah, talking from the perspective of a citizen of the United States, I haven't really experience much of the anti-American sentiment the times I have been to Europe but that might have been because I didn't talk to the right people or because they were nice enough(?) not to say it to my face. Personally the nationalism I have trouble with is from the jingoistic types that think America is the greatest and that everyone else should just learn to speak English so that they don't have to learn another language.

 

[superbowlbound]

I try not to generalize against other nations, but I do hate a lot of things about popular American patriotism.

WW2 for example, living in Canada, we tend to think of WW2 as this global tragedy in which countries from all over the world banded together like never before to deal with a situation.

Americans seem to believe it was all just about how Hitler was bad and how America saved the day, and how the whole event is just proof of how awesome America is. Even going as far as to rewrite history(Pearl Harbour), disregard the fact that they arrived two years late when everybody else jumped in right away, and of course pretend certain armies hardly existed.(Russia anyone?)

(Pearl Harbor lrn2spell)

SORRY, sorry. Anyways. I don't know any Americans who think we single-handedly won WWII (Although I will take credit for WWI, but another tangent). I am curious what this revision of Pearl HARBOR is though. And don't forget, we get a lot of credit for a lot of reasons. We supplied ALL of the allies with tanks, planes, and guns. The American generals were the only ones who ever had successful battle plans (remember market garden?).

The war didn't really get on track until D-Day, I mean Africa was cool and all, but NO ONE cared. D-Day happened after America joined and was planned by Americans. Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

I'm not crazy/stupid enough to think we were the single reason for Allied victory, but don't dare act like we were just a small puzzle piece, we did a larger share than any other allied country (inb4 Russia losing 20 million people, it was incompetent generals, poor supply, and outgunned soldiers). Finally the US did not enter WWII because of Hitler and the jews, we, along with most of the world, were very racist against Jewish people and didn't really care until Pearl HARBOR was bomber.

/rant

Maybe you should retake that history class friend. You didn't supply anyone out of the goodness of your heart, you sold weapons kinda like how you "supplied" the Egyptian "leaders" until they were just recently overthrown. The Canadians actually penetrated their beachhead first and went in deeper at the end of D-day. They were also the ones to defeat (along with the Polish and the Brits) Hitler's personal gaurd/regiment of the ss, the 12SS Panzer Division, and the Panzer Lehr Division (one of the most elite armored divisions). There was another fight whose name I can't remember or find but the Canadians managed to capture a ridge where everyone else failed. Oh and lets not forget the polish. They were one of if not the strongest of the "Russian" Divisions (even though they were given nothing to work with). The Poles were also instrumental in the Battle of Britian getting the highest kill count of any of the other Flying Divisions. So get your ego in check. Ya you guys help, but don't go stating you were some gigantic turning point or you did a LARGER share than everyone else. America didn't spend years fighting like everyone else and just came in at the end, when the Germans were already losing.

*sigh* Who wrote the D-Day battleplan? The Canadian soldiers?
Anywho the Americans did face the worst on the beaches of D-day, so its not really an accurate argument, but I said nothing about the soldiers themselves. And doesn't matter if we supplied/sold (in reality leased) we still were the biggest industrial power and supplied the other allies through the war. Canada and Britain may have had soldiers, but without guns, bullets, airplanes, bombs, and ships they can't do much, can they?

No, not the Canadian soldiers but a team led by the brits. Also leased/soled is irrelevent for the longest time, the US was content to sit and watch people be murdered while they made a quick buck. Also supplies were offered for over 1.5 years and and it still took you guys months after that to help out. So don't go acting like your country is some godsend sent to help everyone else.

Yeah, that's not why the US didn't enter the war. It was several reasons, but money was not one. There was the fact that we had 'just' finished WWI, a war considered pointless, especially for America, and one that plunged us (and the world) into a economic depression. There was lack of provocation for us to enter WWII (obviously prior to Pearl Harbor). There was the fact that England was not yet a strong ally, don't forget they had invaded the US in the 1800's and we barely allied with them during WWI. Finally the fun subject of racism, or specifically how no one cared about the plight of the Jews (and let me emphasis this was not just US/Germany, Europe shared the sentiments, but had been attacked and had to defend themselves). So get your history straight.

And D-Day was still not written solely by the British, specifically not the people fighting on Normandy (as per your point). Eisenhower was the main architect and was also fully prepared to resign had it failed, for he was the one solely responsible.

Confused by your last statement about supplies being offered (as in I really can't tell what it means.)

 

[NightHawk21]

WW1 ended 2 decades before WW2 (not a long time in the grand scheme of things, true but its not like WW2 and the cold war), and it did not send the US into a depression. In fact the decade following the war was one of great economic prosperity, you're thinking of the depression in the 30s probably (which WW2 brought everyone out of). Also money might not have been the only reason, but you can bet your ass it was at least a small part of every choice that was made. Not sure what history you're referring to that I "have to get straight" or what the jews have to do with why you think that America is some war time jesus here to save us.

Eisenhower was supreme commander of the allied forces (not even the one is control of ground troops), once the US joined, but the Normandy Landings were planned by a team led by a British Lieutenant (Frederick Morgan). So no he was not the architect and not solely responsible.

As for the supplies I made a spelling mistake should be:
"Also supplies weren't offered for over 1.5 years and and it still took you guys months after that to help out."

 

[Pebblig]

I think the point of the thread was lost somewhat amongst all this Nationalism.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

I try not to generalize against other nations, but I do hate a lot of things about popular American patriotism.

WW2 for example, living in Canada, we tend to think of WW2 as this global tragedy in which countries from all over the world banded together like never before to deal with a situation.

Americans seem to believe it was all just about how Hitler was bad and how America saved the day, and how the whole event is just proof of how awesome America is. Even going as far as to rewrite history(Pearl Harbour), disregard the fact that they arrived two years late when everybody else jumped in right away, and of course pretend certain armies hardly existed.(Russia anyone?)

(Pearl Harbor lrn2spell)

SORRY, sorry. Anyways. I don't know any Americans who think we single-handedly won WWII (Although I will take credit for WWI, but another tangent). I am curious what this revision of Pearl HARBOR is though. And don't forget, we get a lot of credit for a lot of reasons. We supplied ALL of the allies with tanks, planes, and guns. The American generals were the only ones who ever had successful battle plans (remember market garden?).

The war didn't really get on track until D-Day, I mean Africa was cool and all, but NO ONE cared. D-Day happened after America joined and was planned by Americans. Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

I'm not crazy/stupid enough to think we were the single reason for Allied victory, but don't dare act like we were just a small puzzle piece, we did a larger share than any other allied country (inb4 Russia losing 20 million people, it was incompetent generals, poor supply, and outgunned soldiers). Finally the US did not enter WWII because of Hitler and the jews, we, along with most of the world, were very racist against Jewish people and didn't really care until Pearl HARBOR was bomber.

/rant

Harbour is the Brittish spelling, just like armour etc, so getting so up in arms about it is pretty needless.

Next, thanks for saying England had terrible generals and tactics, in-spite the fact that it was us and the french resistance that did the spying, mainly the brittish engineers who designed all the unusual machines that were used in the assault, and that we had successfully tanked the blitz, and managed to get Hitler to actually stop what would have crippled us, bombing the factories.

Not to mention Russia had won the war long before, and were taking the brunt of Germany's main force. Yes, america were a tipping point, causing the squeeze on Germany as they were assaulted on all sides, but don't think it was America that did most of the work, even during and after D-day. Only thing your generals wanted was to push forward recklessly, and that was because of your mistrust of the Russians and communism, and we all know how that went down in the end.

America were valuable, but they were not a deciding factor. The biggest thing they did were the nukes in Japan, that ended the war there faster.

Two things: PROPER NOUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbour,_New_Zealand

They are different places

Anyways is Japan not WWII? but more importantly what does designing war machines have to do with battle plans? Also that is hilarious to say Russia won the war. They only started to push back because Hitler had to withdraw troops from the Eastern front.

Ok, you got me on the grammar, can't deny that.

That's just...wrong. Look at the timeline, by the time we had even begun planning D-Day, the Russians had held off the brunt of the attack, and were begging to push back. It is true that they were asking for the second front so that they didn't need to worry about a second wave, and to relieve pressure, but Germany never withdrew troops from the east, not in any meaningful number at least.

And as for designing of the war machines, the spying, the subtifuge, AND that Brittish and American generals were in collaboration, yeah, America really planned it all out. No, America talent came in when we were on land and pushed for us to keep going. The brittish generals were more...cautious. We can never say which one was the better option, as the American tactic worked, but D-Day was little more than split our entire forces into 5 smaller ones and keep on shelling and sending men in. Tactically it was simple. All the actual planning happened around that, and it was the Brittish that did that.

America was important, there's no doubts about it, but I just get sick on Americans who act as if they did it single handedly. It was a horrific war, and every side regrets it, bar the Americans, who see it as the last unambiguous good vs evil war they've been in, and won't let the rest of us forget it, and try to change history to favor them.

 

[Stu35]

Snip

Strawman much?

If you fancy a rant, then rant, but don't tell me what I do, or do not think, about the Americans.

Please, just don't insult other countries because of certain happenings in the past because we are all the same but also all different. I know that, you know that and everyone else knows that because its just part of our general understanding of the world. Do we act like we know that? No, we don't (in my opinion).

First - I'll insult whoever the hell I want, for whatever reason I want, because that's my god given right as a British citizen.

Second - Eh? That particular paragraph made very, very little sense; "we are all the same but also all different"? Is that an attempt to be somehow deep and meaningful? It's not, it's dross.


...

The reason I've basically stopped posting on these forums is due to the sheer number of people starting threads against strawman opponents in an attempt to generate some sort of weird controversy, or seem somehow insightful.

 

[superbowlbound]

I try not to generalize against other nations, but I do hate a lot of things about popular American patriotism.

WW2 for example, living in Canada, we tend to think of WW2 as this global tragedy in which countries from all over the world banded together like never before to deal with a situation.

Americans seem to believe it was all just about how Hitler was bad and how America saved the day, and how the whole event is just proof of how awesome America is. Even going as far as to rewrite history(Pearl Harbour), disregard the fact that they arrived two years late when everybody else jumped in right away, and of course pretend certain armies hardly existed.(Russia anyone?)

(Pearl Harbor lrn2spell)

SORRY, sorry. Anyways. I don't know any Americans who think we single-handedly won WWII (Although I will take credit for WWI, but another tangent). I am curious what this revision of Pearl HARBOR is though. And don't forget, we get a lot of credit for a lot of reasons. We supplied ALL of the allies with tanks, planes, and guns. The American generals were the only ones who ever had successful battle plans (remember market garden?).

The war didn't really get on track until D-Day, I mean Africa was cool and all, but NO ONE cared. D-Day happened after America joined and was planned by Americans. Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

I'm not crazy/stupid enough to think we were the single reason for Allied victory, but don't dare act like we were just a small puzzle piece, we did a larger share than any other allied country (inb4 Russia losing 20 million people, it was incompetent generals, poor supply, and outgunned soldiers). Finally the US did not enter WWII because of Hitler and the jews, we, along with most of the world, were very racist against Jewish people and didn't really care until Pearl HARBOR was bomber.

/rant

You are kidding right? almost 10 000 allied troops died and that's successful ? D Day was a horrible day and your disrespect towards it shows how messed up Americans can be. America also didn't "supply" everyone yes their munitions were used but we paid for.. also ww1? you ... you can't take credit for anything. You aren't the entire military....


how about we dig to the most recent wars to show how far you have fallen from glory, Vietnam ?
how about the bay of pigs invasion? how about Iraq.... hmmm I think the brief moments of heroism is severely outweighed by the team america warfare going on in developing nations to steal what little wealth they have for itself.

I actually laughed out loud. As Stalin said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"

But I lol'd more because Eisenhower expected the loses to be well over 10x that... I'd say that's successful.

and in terms of Vietnam and Iraq, lrn2ignore the media. They are the reason we pulled out of Vietnam (look up the Tet Offensive and the way the media spun it). And if you want to talk about $ then yes, Iraq failed. But with minimal casualties and a new government, then it was successful. (and if you want to discuss ethics, yet again nothing to do with the war after it started)

wow.

how self righteous.

I bet you piss red white and blue don't you?

I'll tell you what, I won't bother arguing with you... I was always taught " don't argue with an idiot... they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience"

I will say this however.

The Vietnam war was against communism that was never a threat ... America just has to impose it's "values" on developing nations because it thinks it is the biggest global super power.

reality check... America is now going to be bought by china because the debt sealing was raised to 14.7 trillion? bah.

10x that amount of casualties expected? that doesn't excuse it. You are pathetic. truly.

what about the bay of pigs huh? didn't have anything on that did you?

Iraq was completely avoidable and casualties shouldn't have happened because the war shouldn't have. tell me why we needed to Invade them?

I bet you stroke yourself to mw3 don't you? to the thought of american's being the self righteous heroes of the world.


buddy you are pathetic.

really.

Well ignoring the fact you won't reply...
Several things, yes debt is awful in this country, but China will never call us on it in the near future because our economies are intertwined. Secondly would you have preferred D-day not happen? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You are basically saying we should have given up, let the Nazis rule Europe, and called it a day to avoid the minimal casualties? And you call me dumb...

Yeah, Bay of Pigs flopped, that's why I didn't defend it, does any country not have its blemishes. know back to your intelligence I clearly stated you can debate the ethics of Iraq, but it happened with minimal casualties, so my point is still valid. That's like saying Hitler should have never been elected so WWII shouldn't have happened and all the casualties were avoidable, a nice thought, but not really the argument. Same thing goes for Nam, I do not debate the that it was questionable to enter into the war, I do contest that it was a failure.

Finally MW3 sucks ass, although it is slightly (SLIGHTLY) better than MW2.

So Please, please tell me how I am and idiot when you just ignore arguments and instead focus on your personal feelings about a single soldier dieing in war. I don't recall the quote being "war is heaven"

yup.

I will ask you this, did I really say d day shouldn't have happened?

I never said ww2 should not have happened.

I merely said the us was responsible for the most poorly executed war and the only reason it was won was because you bombed every munitions factory they had.

that's like playing basketball and taking the other teams hoop so they can't score.

My entire point was the US was not the hero of any war and people like you are truly pathetic and worthless thinking so.
lol



please don't comment again I really don't feel like clarifying anything I have already said clearly enough for someone with an average level of cognitive capacity to understand.

I don't recall being the one asking for clarification.

But anyways you are the one saying D-Day was a failure and shouldn't have happened.

And confused how the US is responsible for WWII, they are about as far removed for the causation as possible. And since when does war need to 'played' on an even field? If I have stealth planes and you have no air force does that mean I should not use my air force. I'd make a comment about how I see your not a general, but that is an understatement.

And US was still a hero of WWI and WWII (and the Gulf War, and War of 1812, and the American Civil War, and the Barbary pirates etc). But seriously the US was responsible for WWII? THE US WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR WWII?!? And you call me an idiot.... But I still can't believe you are attacking the Normandy invasion. It is considered one of the greatest battle plans ever. EVER! You are clearly a troll, and a poorly disguised one at that.

Finally you have clearly reverted to insulting my intelligence because your argument is as strong as Somalia's government.

Come at me!

 

[superbowlbound]

I try not to generalize against other nations, but I do hate a lot of things about popular American patriotism.

WW2 for example, living in Canada, we tend to think of WW2 as this global tragedy in which countries from all over the world banded together like never before to deal with a situation.

Americans seem to believe it was all just about how Hitler was bad and how America saved the day, and how the whole event is just proof of how awesome America is. Even going as far as to rewrite history(Pearl Harbour), disregard the fact that they arrived two years late when everybody else jumped in right away, and of course pretend certain armies hardly existed.(Russia anyone?)

(Pearl Harbor lrn2spell)

SORRY, sorry. Anyways. I don't know any Americans who think we single-handedly won WWII (Although I will take credit for WWI, but another tangent). I am curious what this revision of Pearl HARBOR is though. And don't forget, we get a lot of credit for a lot of reasons. We supplied ALL of the allies with tanks, planes, and guns. The American generals were the only ones who ever had successful battle plans (remember market garden?).

The war didn't really get on track until D-Day, I mean Africa was cool and all, but NO ONE cared. D-Day happened after America joined and was planned by Americans. Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

I'm not crazy/stupid enough to think we were the single reason for Allied victory, but don't dare act like we were just a small puzzle piece, we did a larger share than any other allied country (inb4 Russia losing 20 million people, it was incompetent generals, poor supply, and outgunned soldiers). Finally the US did not enter WWII because of Hitler and the jews, we, along with most of the world, were very racist against Jewish people and didn't really care until Pearl HARBOR was bomber.

/rant

Harbour is the Brittish spelling, just like armour etc, so getting so up in arms about it is pretty needless.

Next, thanks for saying England had terrible generals and tactics, in-spite the fact that it was us and the french resistance that did the spying, mainly the brittish engineers who designed all the unusual machines that were used in the assault, and that we had successfully tanked the blitz, and managed to get Hitler to actually stop what would have crippled us, bombing the factories.

Not to mention Russia had won the war long before, and were taking the brunt of Germany's main force. Yes, america were a tipping point, causing the squeeze on Germany as they were assaulted on all sides, but don't think it was America that did most of the work, even during and after D-day. Only thing your generals wanted was to push forward recklessly, and that was because of your mistrust of the Russians and communism, and we all know how that went down in the end.

America were valuable, but they were not a deciding factor. The biggest thing they did were the nukes in Japan, that ended the war there faster.

Two things: PROPER NOUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbour,_New_Zealand

They are different places

Anyways is Japan not WWII? but more importantly what does designing war machines have to do with battle plans? Also that is hilarious to say Russia won the war. They only started to push back because Hitler had to withdraw troops from the Eastern front.

Ok, you got me on the grammar, can't deny that.

That's just...wrong. Look at the timeline, by the time we had even begun planning D-Day, the Russians had held off the brunt of the attack, and were begging to push back. It is true that they were asking for the second front so that they didn't need to worry about a second wave, and to relieve pressure, but Germany never withdrew troops from the east, not in any meaningful number at least.

And as for designing of the war machines, the spying, the subtifuge, AND that Brittish and American generals were in collaboration, yeah, America really planned it all out. No, America talent came in when we were on land and pushed for us to keep going. The brittish generals were more...cautious. We can never say which one was the better option, as the American tactic worked, but D-Day was little more than split our entire forces into 5 smaller ones and keep on shelling and sending men in. Tactically it was simple. All the actual planning happened around that, and it was the Brittish that did that.

America was important, there's no doubts about it, but I just get sick on Americans who act as if they did it single handedly. It was a horrific war, and every side regrets it, bar the Americans, who see it as the last unambiguous good vs evil war they've been in, and won't let the rest of us forget it, and try to change history to favor them.

I did not act like we did it single handedly, I simply replied to someone who acted like we played a small role. The Americans played a significant role in the war, and it would have lasted for 10+ more years if not for US intervention (quote historians, not me, the bombing of Pearl Harbor is considered the worst move of the war, followed by the invasion of Russia). I actually know very few Americans who think we did it single handedly, the only people who should be pissed is the Russians, because we tend to discount their contribution (because of the Cold War).

As for British general plans, they weren't working and continued to not work throughout the war. the biggest reason being Hitler was very aggressive and sitting around doing nothing meant huge defeats. But D-Day was an incredibly complex plan, with AMERICANS faking landings, making fake war equipment, making fake intel, Planning the time of the attack, the day, the beach head locations, training troops, supplying them, sending in Pathfinders to set up prior, Sending in US paratroopers to confuse the enemy, take out guns, and divert the Panzers, etc. It was definitely not just landing at a beach and taking machine gun nests.

And its British

 

[Grant Hobba]

I try not to generalize against other nations, but I do hate a lot of things about popular American patriotism.

WW2 for example, living in Canada, we tend to think of WW2 as this global tragedy in which countries from all over the world banded together like never before to deal with a situation.

Americans seem to believe it was all just about how Hitler was bad and how America saved the day, and how the whole event is just proof of how awesome America is. Even going as far as to rewrite history(Pearl Harbour), disregard the fact that they arrived two years late when everybody else jumped in right away, and of course pretend certain armies hardly existed.(Russia anyone?)

(Pearl Harbor lrn2spell)

SORRY, sorry. Anyways. I don't know any Americans who think we single-handedly won WWII (Although I will take credit for WWI, but another tangent). I am curious what this revision of Pearl HARBOR is though. And don't forget, we get a lot of credit for a lot of reasons. We supplied ALL of the allies with tanks, planes, and guns. The American generals were the only ones who ever had successful battle plans (remember market garden?).

The war didn't really get on track until D-Day, I mean Africa was cool and all, but NO ONE cared. D-Day happened after America joined and was planned by Americans. Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

I'm not crazy/stupid enough to think we were the single reason for Allied victory, but don't dare act like we were just a small puzzle piece, we did a larger share than any other allied country (inb4 Russia losing 20 million people, it was incompetent generals, poor supply, and outgunned soldiers). Finally the US did not enter WWII because of Hitler and the jews, we, along with most of the world, were very racist against Jewish people and didn't really care until Pearl HARBOR was bomber.

/rant

You are kidding right? almost 10 000 allied troops died and that's successful ? D Day was a horrible day and your disrespect towards it shows how messed up Americans can be. America also didn't "supply" everyone yes their munitions were used but we paid for.. also ww1? you ... you can't take credit for anything. You aren't the entire military....


how about we dig to the most recent wars to show how far you have fallen from glory, Vietnam ?
how about the bay of pigs invasion? how about Iraq.... hmmm I think the brief moments of heroism is severely outweighed by the team america warfare going on in developing nations to steal what little wealth they have for itself.

I actually laughed out loud. As Stalin said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"

But I lol'd more because Eisenhower expected the loses to be well over 10x that... I'd say that's successful.

and in terms of Vietnam and Iraq, lrn2ignore the media. They are the reason we pulled out of Vietnam (look up the Tet Offensive and the way the media spun it). And if you want to talk about $ then yes, Iraq failed. But with minimal casualties and a new government, then it was successful. (and if you want to discuss ethics, yet again nothing to do with the war after it started)

wow.

how self righteous.

I bet you piss red white and blue don't you?

I'll tell you what, I won't bother arguing with you... I was always taught " don't argue with an idiot... they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience"

I will say this however.

The Vietnam war was against communism that was never a threat ... America just has to impose it's "values" on developing nations because it thinks it is the biggest global super power.

reality check... America is now going to be bought by china because the debt sealing was raised to 14.7 trillion? bah.

10x that amount of casualties expected? that doesn't excuse it. You are pathetic. truly.

what about the bay of pigs huh? didn't have anything on that did you?

Iraq was completely avoidable and casualties shouldn't have happened because the war shouldn't have. tell me why we needed to Invade them?

I bet you stroke yourself to mw3 don't you? to the thought of american's being the self righteous heroes of the world.


buddy you are pathetic.

really.

Well ignoring the fact you won't reply...
Several things, yes debt is awful in this country, but China will never call us on it in the near future because our economies are intertwined. Secondly would you have preferred D-day not happen? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You are basically saying we should have given up, let the Nazis rule Europe, and called it a day to avoid the minimal casualties? And you call me dumb...

Yeah, Bay of Pigs flopped, that's why I didn't defend it, does any country not have its blemishes. know back to your intelligence I clearly stated you can debate the ethics of Iraq, but it happened with minimal casualties, so my point is still valid. That's like saying Hitler should have never been elected so WWII shouldn't have happened and all the casualties were avoidable, a nice thought, but not really the argument. Same thing goes for Nam, I do not debate the that it was questionable to enter into the war, I do contest that it was a failure.

Finally MW3 sucks ass, although it is slightly (SLIGHTLY) better than MW2.

So Please, please tell me how I am and idiot when you just ignore arguments and instead focus on your personal feelings about a single soldier dieing in war. I don't recall the quote being "war is heaven"

yup.

I will ask you this, did I really say d day shouldn't have happened?


I never said ww2 should not have happened.

I merely said the us was responsible for the most poorly executed war and the only reason it was won was because you bombed every munitions factory they had.

that's like playing basketball and taking the other teams hoop so they can't score.

My entire point was the US was not the hero of any war and people like you are truly pathetic and worthless thinking so.
lol



please don't comment again I really don't feel like clarifying anything I have already said clearly enough for someone with an average level of cognitive capacity to understand.

I can't help but dislike you,people who act superior when they only reason they think so is because they have a different opinion are not the type I would like to see outside of the computer screen. Also, who cares how one goes about winning any war? Everyone knows that a good way to win a war is to cut off enemy supplies, so it just makes sense to bomb munition factories.

One last thing, Putting "LOL" or "" at the end of your rant does not take away from the general aggressiveness. Other than that, I don't care if you dislike America or his opinion. Just don't be self righteous.

Self righteous says the guys who thinks that the quote "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" isn't completely messed up statement.

okay buddy, last nerve.

I personally believe, if i am laughing at how much you think you know, how hard you fuck apple pies and salute the flag 8 times a day whilst stroking guns watching foreign movies; then yes it does take away all aggression you seem to think there is.

My point was that documentaries, have shown ww1 the turning point was actually a move orchestrated by Australians not Americans.

ww2 all america did was storm a beach when I am pretty much certain there would have been many other routes of attacks that weren't so sacrificial.

No I am not a general... but neither are you.

the fact that you use that as an insult is pretty petty... it's like me insulting you by means of your inability to hold a guitar properly whilst I rattle off Steve Vai's building the church perfectly. (if in fact you can't or don't have any intention of playing guitar)

You are so ridiculously full of yourself and your country ... it's a joke.

America lost Vietnam, didn't win ww2 the "allied forces did" not just the us and the fact that you think it did shows just how poor and skewed your judgement is.