World War 2

did i say Russia was aligned with Germany?

You said they switched sides, so to switch, you have to be on the other side first, right?

aka changed sides, or moved from nuetral if that will make you happier.

And you say I can't read properly? You can't write properly. Of course this makes me happier, becuase it is true.

First of all, I said America should've stopped at Afghanistan. Second of all, i am not contradicting myself, the Allies and the Germans were at war that would've had tremendous impact throughout the world and like you said America stood back until it directly effected them........

now, please remind me again as to whom Iraq was at war with.

You say Iraq didn't "directly" effect America, so you criticised them for going in, then when they werent directly effected in ww2 and they didnt go into battle, you called them chickens, which is a conrtadiction becuase you criticised them for going into iraq, but then criticised them for not going in ww2.

correction number two: the reason they (america) even went to Iraq, wrong or right, was in no way selfless, they would've never have done what they did if not for this little thing called 9/11 you see....... war on terrorism blah blah blah. America didnt go to Iraq to "help a situation that had nothing to do with them". They chickened out until they got hit.... just like in world war 2.

And you know this becuase? Oh thats right, you dont

I didnt say they were bastards for making money, its just that people tend to forget that probably a big reason america is where they are at now is because they profitted a lot from both world wars. America only became the biggest manufacturer internationally during/after World War 1. They didnt participate in world war 2 until they got hit, but before they got hit what do you think they were doing? Making lots and lots of money.

I dont think its a crime that they did this, but please dont portray them as the selfless noble knights in shining armor who swept in to save the day out of the very goodness of their hearts

I never said that.

you got it the other way around. Why should people take you seriously when you can't even read and quote correctly. Find where I said "this world should be banned" and quote it. I said the word truth should be banned, and if you know anything about philosophy than you would agree, it didnt even have anything really to do with what i was talking about I kinda diverted but oh well.

The russians because if the russians hadnt changed sides the us would've never been able to beat both russia and germany unfied. Stupid hitler. Anyway, honsetly, I wouldnt put any one in front of the other because they needed em all to win. America chickened out until they got hit, all the while profitting BIG TIME from it (world war 2 was one of the best thing that happened to america economically-- hell, britain only finished paying off their debt to the us financially in like 97 or soimething), and then joined, which i think is pretty lame. But russia only helped cuz germans turned on them, so they werent noble either or anything. And britain had to cuz they were next up. Anyway, they werent fighting for fucking democracy or freedom, they were just saving their necks, not a bad thing by the way, no need to sweety pie it up, theirs as much blood on american and british hands as there is on germans and japs. If i know anything, I know one thing: Victor writes history in their image. Who knows, maybe God (if he exists) is really satan victorious. Truth is the stupidest word ever created, it should just be banned and stuffed up a donkeys cock.

A little agrument has broken out. This guys thinks Russia could have won WW2 without the help of the US and that Russia was beating Germany without the US's help. I don't think they could have contained Germany and US and Britian both helped stretch them across both borders.

Also, Stalingrad was captured by the Germans which is a couple hunderd miles away from Moscow. I believe that is correct.

During the battle at Normandy (d-day) America pulled a TON of germany's resources to the West during that battle making it easier for the Russians on the other side to attack and progress. US won the battle of normandy despite the overwhelming loss of life and odds.

Who had greater impact in WW2? Could Russia do it alone? Did US win it for them? Please post why.

This is copy paste

What are you talking about?

You said they switched sides, so to switch, you have to be on the other side first, right?

aka changed sides, or moved from nuetral if that will make you happier.

And you say I can't read properly? You can't write properly. Of course this makes me happier, becuase it is true.

Please, learn how to read. Its not my writing thats the problem, and I know that because in the "real world" I have been paid well to write for others; you saying I can't write is unfounded, while me making the statement you can't read has evidence to support it. If you don't understand that sentences relate to each other to create ideas thats your problem. Please quote entire ideas rather than singular sentences that have completely different meanings alone, in this case: " Russia's "nuetrality" if thats what you want to call it helped Germany far more than it helped the Allies, thus I would put Russia on Germany's side."

correction number two: the reason they (america) even went to Iraq, wrong or right, was in no way selfless, they would've never have done what they did if not for this little thing called 9/11 you see....... war on terrorism blah blah blah. America didnt go to Iraq to "help a situation that had nothing to do with them". They chickened out until they got hit.... just like in world war 2.

And you know this becuase? Oh thats right, you dont

Please tell me why the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are both part of what is called the "war on terror" by the American president if neither have anything to do with each other and the terrorism which coincidentally occured in the United States prior. If you think the American public and congress would have let Bush go to war in Iraq if 9/11 hadn't occured you're sadly mistaken.

Ironically, america's war against terrorism in Iraq, in my opinion, only adds to the terror. Terrorism will never be defeated by military might.

First of all, I said America should've stopped at Afghanistan. Second of all, i am not contradicting myself, the Allies and the Germans were at war that would've had tremendous impact throughout the world and like you said America stood back until it directly effected them........

now, please remind me again as to whom Iraq was at war with.You say Iraq didn't "directly" effect America, so you criticised them for going in, then when they werent directly effected in ww2 and they didnt go into battle, you called them chickens, which is a conrtadiction becuase you criticised them for going into iraq, but then criticised them for not going in ww2.

Notice that the end of my paragraph had a "..........", that means you have to keep on reading:

now, please remind me again as to whom Iraq was at war with.

also reread: "the Allies and the Germans were at war that would've had tremendous impact throughout the world"

Comparing a war between the superpowers of the world and some small backwater corrupt country is an inadequate argument. I don't contradict myself because the situations are so utterly different its funny you're even trying to use it to scrape together some type of victory.

look down

Truth is the stupidest word ever created, it should just be banned and stuffed up a donkeys cock.

Someone tell me where "this world should be banned" is derived from that.

Without the truth what is the point in searching for facts? Then everything is kind of floating out there, everything is a lie. There are facts you just have look hard enough.

Facts are true until proven wrong, which inevitably I believe they will continuously be. There is truth for an era, but I don't think that there is anything true or factual for the breadth of time, past and future. Truth is a noble concept, but the word itself doesn't do it justice, which is why I said the word should be banned and not the thing itself because i belive the "true" definition is derived from far more than the general connotations of the word as we know it right now. In fact, I think that believing in set "truths" traps people in very narrow minded, boring realities.

Last edited by magius on Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dick Jokes.

But yes WWII sucked.

I'm going wayyyy off topic, I bet.