and that article just looks to be an exaggeration.
Right since you can't actually see enough of the people. lol
i did a fair substantial internet search to see if there was any corroborating articles out there, there was not.
It was ten years ago. Why would someone expect to find more than one article on that subject?
but words such as VAST don't mean anything unless you have a picture of a crowd of a few thousand people to back it up.
You could literally say that about ANY article that uses the word vast. I am not taking your argument seriously....
you have nothing to prove what you are saying
Im sorry do you have something to prove that there aren't a lot of people there?
the article simply proves your own gullibility in beleiving something you want to beleive.
Again, you could say this about any article. This is not a plausible defense. Just yelling "PROPAGANDA!" at any article that presents opposing data is not going to help.
i just seriously doubt it was very many.
Well you despise Western media so I wouldn't be surprised since your opinion is biased.
or the economic institution rthe US setup after WW2 to rape the world e.g. IMF, WORLD BANk etc. etc. or US corporations e.g. Monsanto
blah, blah, blah
I admit im sepculating when it comes to the reaction of people in Africa and Asia but you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.
Here's my evidence: basic human morals. Neither Africans nor Asians have a reason to be apathetic about planes crashing into buildings full of people, therefore they were sympathetic for those who died.
keep in mind that i cwas clmaining this was the case in the middle east from the very beginning of this debate long before i found that piece of highly credible evidence to back it up.
It literally means nothing. You have no idea how many of the people or what percentage of the population reacted this way.
i claimed from the beginning that you were completely over estimating the level of worldwide sympathy for attacks
Im not really sure how many more times that I am going to have to type this but let me do it again, hopefully it will sink in this time: it was hyperbole, or exaggeration for effect. There was no reason for me to think, at the time, that someone would shit their pants at such a simple phrase considering that feeling bad for the victims of 9/11 is actually good and normal.
Of course the peoples of no arab country wanted to accept responsibility for the attacks, they were well aware of the brewing shit storm that the US military was gearing up for, they all wanted to distance themselves from the attacks in roder to distance themselves from the american response
They recognized the attacks as bad and, in effect, recognized that the attack was morally wrong.
This report is probably close to the best evidence available on this subject
Then, unfortunately, your point cannot be proven. My point is simple: for the most part, the world felt bad for Americans on 9/11; you can try to make it seem as though nobody cared that the US got attacked, but saying all of my evidence is propaganda simply isnt working.
what the prevailing opinion is i.e. "Most Muslims were horrified by the death and destruction wreaked by the September 11 attacks
Most knew the attacks were wrong, therefore they were against the attacks and the victims dying, therefore I am right.
Yes thats it try to weasel your way out it.
Lol there is nothing to weasel out of.
Your country has completey destroyed Iraq and kcaused the deaths of approximately 1.2 million people the process, is that large enough for you?
That doesn't make terrorist attacks of that magnitude commonplace.
I agree completely with that interpretation, what you fail to realise is that doesnt imply a Nazis victory it only implies that the Nazis would not have been comprehensibly defeated in the manner in which they were.
You need to understand that in saying that the Allies could never have won, implies that they would lose. The goal of the war was not only to defend themselves, but to push Germany back within its boundaries. For example, what would have happened if there was a stalemate and France was left under German control while Hitler kept killing Jews? That is an undeniable defeat, not a victory. Eventually Hitler would have gone after the USSR again, Stalin knew this. If Hitler took over the rest of Europe why wouldn't he go keep going after Britain and Russia as well?
if the Nazis...still commanded a resonably sizeable chink of europe relative to what they had prior to WW2 (e.g. they still had Austria, the rheinland and maybe poland) but they were effectively neutralised and the spread of facism was prevented, would this not be called a victory?
Absolutely not. Take this example: what if Barack Obama was some fascist dictator who used Jews as scapegoats and killed them by the millions and then he takes over Canada and then moves south and takes over all of the land to lets say the panama canal, where the opposing forces stop him. Is it a victory that they stopped him? No. He is still going to kill people and they cant do anything about it. Simply saying "oh im glad he wasnt able to get to us" is not substantial enough to say that the world has won. Your standards for a victory are way too low.
does that mena that without american aid the USSR would have fallen completely and totally under the control of Nazis Germany? I can with some confidence that his answer would have been a resounding NO!!!! despite what you want to beleive.
Again, saying that he could have never won implies that Hitler would have won. Think about it this way: do you really think he would have said "well I lost about 20 million people and have stopped Hitler from killing more Soviets although he is still in control of Europe and continues to kill millions of other innocent people, and he is regaining his strength and he still continues to build an atomic bomb while the Japanese are getting ready to help him destroy me and the rest of the Allies, but I still havent lost."
The use of the word probably twice indicates that despite the fact that your argument is well grounded in the reality of the situation (i admit that) it is still speculation, you have no way of knowing what effect Japan would have had on the war if the US didn't get involved, besides they were always going to be invloved in some capacity, it just wasn't feasible in the end for them to stay out of it.
Lets see what just happened: i presented you with the most intelligent option for the Japanese at the time, you agreed that it was very realistic, but you went on to say that nothing is certain. Well I know that nothing is certain but all we have in this hypothetical situation is what is most likely to occur. What I said is the most realistic option, therefore it is the option that is most likely to have come true, therefore that is what would have happened, in regards to this debate.
The piont i was making is that the Nazis may have been severly weakened by the time japan finished conquering Asia, anyway this is all speculation.
Dont you think that if Hitler needed help, he would have called his ally and asked for help? And since Japan is his ally, do you think that it would have refused to help him?
the technology for the bomb was avaiulable therfore if nazi Germnay were making one im sure the allies would have done likelwise with or wothout america.
The Manhattan Project was led by the American military in association with American universities with largely American scientists. 13 out of the 15 locations used in the project were within the United States. Also, the United States paid for the majority of the $24 billion(in todays dollars) project. I am not saying that the US did it alone but without the US, Britain and Canada would have been much slower in developing the bomb. As for the USSR, they didn't even get uranium until 1945.
No not stopped them from moving any further but pushed them back significantly before a stalemate occurred.
Without American aid they would not have even been able to push them back.
Yes but the piont is by the time they assisted the Nazis may have been severly weakened, again were in the territory of complete speculation, the piotn is what you are saying isn't the only possible outcome, far from it in fact.
This is what is most likely to have occurred: the USSR would fail to be restrengthened by American aid and therefore not be as strong as they were in the real WW2. Japan would help Germany since that is what allies do for each other. For example, when the US declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on the US. This time, however, Japan would have all of the oil it needs and therefore be stronger than it was in reality. Britain would not have been able to stop attacks by U-boats. The British would have been starving to death as they would not be getting any food from the US. Germany would be closer to developing an atomic bomb than the other Allies and there would no invasion of Africa or Normandy. No Western front would have been opened and the USSR would have been forced to fight longer against a lot more Germans. In summary, the Allies would be much weaker against a much stronger enemy.
Think about for one second (and not to let your unbeleiveable bias get in the way)
LOL. This is coming from the person who, upon reading an article of Western media origin, automatically assumes propaganda is at work and there are only lies within the article.
if there were vast crowds of people don't you think that BBC paid photographer would have gotten a photo of them?
No because a normal person wouldn't think the author is lying when he can't see enough people in the picture. Obviously your going to argue something to the effect of: well the normal person cant tell the difference between propaganda and real news but I can and I know they are lying. See? That is the essence of your argument. All you say in defense is that what you think. I am saying what has been recorded. Really, just stop.
Let me ask you a question how many people do you think turned out?
Whatever it says in the article. Because that was a record of the event that took place. You have no credible defense so just stop arguing about it.
I am saying most of the world didn't feel that bad about it, in fact the only part of the world other than the US that really sympathised was Western Europe.
Do you have a source for that? lol why do I even ask anymore? You only argue with your opinions.
all you have presented is a bbc article about a conadle light vigil and a minutes silence at a stadium and a few words of condemnation from world leaders
Oh and what do you have?
Arab reaction to the attacks usually included some combination of the following:
• Satisfaction that the United States tasted what it had allegedly dished out to the
Arab world (and the poorer countries globally) for years.
• Condemnation of the attacks as criminal and anti-Islamic but a natural result of
U.S. foreign policy, which was primarily to blame for the attacks.
• Spreading of conspiracy theories that asserted the attacks were the work of
American domestic extremists, the U.S. government, or Israel’s Mossad intelligence
service.
• Rejection of claims that the perpetrators were Arab or Muslim, based on the argument
that Muslims would not commit mass murder or that the terrorist operation
The first reaction probably deals with a minority of the population. The second reaction sides with me that people felt bad about the attacks. The third reaction can even be found in the US, so I'm not surprised that it was found there. The fourth sides with me as well since they do not want to accept that people like them could commit such a heinous attack on the American people, recognizing that the attack was bad. There are no numbers or percentages here so you have no idea which of these reactions are most commonplace. In reality, all of these reactions can even be found in the US so I'm not surprised that they were found there.
this kind of terrorism is commonplace in the world
Lol is it common for two of the largest buildings in the world to be knocked down with people inside them? Is it common for thousands of people to die at the same time in a terrorist attack? Is that commonplace? Nope.
I dont beleive the quote can be interpreted that way as the facts simply don't bear that reality out
Okay here is the quote: "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war." Let's take the quote apart: first, "without American production". This means in absence of American aid. Second, "the United Nations" or the Allies. Third, "could never have won the war." This means that the entity would have been incapable of gaining a victory within any time span. So lets put it all together: In absence of American aid the Allies would have been incapable of gaining a victory within any time span. That is the only credible interpretation of that quote. There is literally nothing there about winning a certain way, only that there would certainly be no way that the Allies could win.
but to assume that Germany would have won based on this quote is just plane stupid especially in light of the available evidence.
Joseph Stalin was the most well-informed human in existence to make a statement like this. In other words, nobody else in the history of the world would know better than him, in regards to this situation.
This is true but again doesnt prove your piont.
The point that the Allies would be without severely needed supplies does not prove my point alone, why would it? Along with the other information, however, it does.
How do you know, the Japanese were interested in conquering asia, this is complete speculation.
They were probably more intelligent than that. They probably recognized that an Allied victory would inevitably lead to offensive of Asia had Japan just took over China, as an Axis power, and just remained there.
Again complete speculation, america wasn't the only country deveoping the bomb at that time.
The Manhattan project was led by the United States in the United States with lesser contributions from Canada and Britain. The only other country that was close to developing the bomb was Germany and we both know who would have won the war had it succeeded.
innumerable outcomes could be called a victory for as long as Nazis Germany didn't establish the empire they set out to establish then the war could be viewd as a victory for the allies.
No. It would not be a victory for the Allies if they simply just stopped Germany from moving any further. Germany would continue to kill Jews and probably develop the atomic bomb on its own and destroy the other Allies.
At the time, not many gave the Soviet Union much chance of survival
This says nothing about them being in favor of the USSR being conquered.
Simply put, Britain and the United States were only too happy to see Europe’s two great totalitarian powers bleed themselves white
If they thought the USSR was going to lose, then they knew that they would have to fight the Germans eventually. They wouldn't just be able to leave Hiter in control of all of that land.
What so you think if Hitlers military tacticians calculated that the USSR would fall to Nazis germany that western tacticians would arrive at a different outcome
Hitler was basically insane so I wouldn't be surprised if he overextended himself in trying to conquer the world.
i agree that the Japanese would have assisted the Nazis at some stage
Then you agree with me.
you seem to think the quote impies that Stalin meant the USSR would have fallen to the Nazis without US aid, you simply can't draw that conclusion.
Of course I can:
The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).[14]
Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminium, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.[15]
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
She was just a capitalist. I just think Atlas Shrugged was just an extreme example of her views. It was necessary to go to such lengths in the writing of the story in order for the reader to be fully against the essence of communism. For example, just as the second-handers gain more power in the story everything goes wrong: people start dying, trains crash, and thousands of people just ditch their lives and run away.
Everyone should pay the same amount of taxes. There should be no discrimination.
Computers make everything more efficient. They do things that humans could never do. They save lives as well. I don't really know any good reasons for why computers would be generally bad.
I don't beleive the crowds were as vast as you think they were, look at the pictures you sent me
Because you don't see a lot of people in the picture there aren't a lot of people there? Even though the article says theres a lot of people, and even though the person who wrote it was there and saw how many people where there, it should be concluded that there aren't a lot of people at the event because you can't see enough of them in the picture. You're ridiculous. Seriously don't try to argue that again.
The same reason they (Western media) exaggerated the Iranian protests and claimed that the elections were fraudulent
That was a very different situation for which you have no facts.
all of Iran was weeping on 9/11
Apparently you didn't understand when I said I was using hyperbole with the word "weeping." Also, all Iranians were not sad about it. I am saying that most of the world felt bad about 9/11, not that everyone in the world was crying about it as you seem to think I meant.
Look, I know you are fueled by some deep hatred for the Western World to continue on arguing about how many people felt bad after 9/11, but I dont care enough to continue arguing about it. The comment that I am replying to is the longest one I have ever seen and most of it had nothing to do with the original debate. After reading most of it, however, I have gotten the impression that you just have some inherent predisposition to disagreeing with Western media; even on small articles such as that on candlelit vigils you believe that Western propaganda is at work. Its just annoying. Just so you know, the West is not the only part of the world which produces propaganda, basically every country does it. You have no evidence to prove me wrong but you attack my evidence with your opinions, which does nothing. It really is a waste of time arguing about that. The truth is, even without the muslim world, most of the world felt bad when terrorists attacked the World Trade Centers. Its the truth and thats all I'm saying. It is generally accepted among normal society that the US did not deserve 9/11.
(1)You see the first quote means that american aid was required in defeating the nazis when they did, as in it was necesasry for the war effort (on all sides not just that of the USSR thats why he uses United Nations) to defeat the Nazis in the timeline withint which they defeated the Nazis
Stalin specifically stated that the Allies "could never have won the war" without American aid. This does not mean that the Allies might have won eventually, it literally means that they could have never won; regardless of the time they had, they would not have won. That is what he is saying. You misinterpreted it.
without american support they would not have been defeated so comprehensively in the time in which they were defeated
Not only would the other Allies be without much needed supplies, but a stronger Japanese military would be attacking them. There would also be no atomic bomb. The Allies would not have been able to win.
Hitler calculated that he would be victorious over the USSR as did the allies, this really isnt up for dispute. I don't have any government sources proving this
So you dont have any sources. All you have are your opinions. Just because Hitler thought he was strong enough to conquer the USSR, doesn't mean that the Allies thought he was strong enough as well. If you have no evidence, then don't try to argue.
the resulting war of atrition would cripple both sides paving the way for their won military success
Even if Germany was crippled in its gain of Russian territory, which Im not suggesting he would have been, do you really think that he wouldn't have the resources to back himself up again? Had the US not been involved, he would only have to defeat Britain.
they receiveed excellent intelligence that Japan did not intend to attack them thus they had greater reserves
And if the US had not been involved, they would have been attacking.
No i can assure you with 100% certainty that the leader of the USSR would not agree that they wouldnt have been able to keep the germans at bay
Well you completely misinterpreted what he said so I am not surprised you think this.
ho knows it may have even ended in a stalemate had it not been for US aid, that is a real possibility, but saying that the Soviets would have been beaten without US aid is just flat out wrong
Here's the difference between me and you: the leader of the USSR said he could not have won without America and you're guessing that he's wrong.
since you are banned from this debate
Yeah Axmeister tends to ban people who prove him wrong.
If you can give me a poll or statistical survey of public opinion in a predominantly muslim country proving what you assert (i.e. the hearts of everyone in the world melted at the tragedy of 9/11)
I gave you something better: action by muslims to mourn the deaths of those lost in 9/11. "Vasts crowds" of people participated in candlelit vigils for 9/11 victims. What reason do they have to exaggerate the number of people who participated? This is a more thoughtful response than any survey could provide; sixty thousand people participated in a moment of silence for the victims. They didn't just tell some poll worker who came to their house that they feel bad for 9/11 victims, they left their homes and prayed for them. What takes more effort and thought?
The truth is people were more worried and scared of the US response after 9/11
Im sorry do you have a poll or statistical survey of public opinion to back this up?
also the lack of specific details leads me to beleive that these stories are exaggerated as there is no mention of the numbers
"Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute's silence at Tehran's football stadium."
i mean the fact that you even think Gaddafi gave half a shit about 9/11 amazes me, and then you demonstrate your incredible naivety by assuming his people were going through the exact same thing
The Iranians were doing it, why wouldn't the Libyans be doing something similar? Oh, nice evidence by the way.
Look im not saying nobody cared about 9/11 but you give me the impression that you think its the only atrocity ever to be committed
The only reason you got that impression is because I am an American and you don't like America.
I think we can both agree thats a little different from ;"Stalin said that without American aid the USSR would have fallen to Germany"
How is that different? He literally said that if America did not help the Allies, then the Allies would not have won the war.
now im not going to disagree with what he actually said
If your not going to disagree with what he said, then you are, in effect, agreeing that America was needed to win WWII.
You see British and american rulers calculated that the USSR would eventually be defeated by the Nazis
Source please.
but that the defeat would cripple the Nazis militarily thus killing two birds with one stone
So you're saying that American and British leaders thought that the Germans would value the defeat of the Soviets enough to destroy themselves in their effort to conquer the USSR? That doesn't even make sense.
I am just going to skip all of the stuff about America's motivation for joining WWII because its irrelevant to the original debate and I don't have a lot of time; pretty much all of it is unsubstantiated anyways.
The fact is that the Red Army had halted the German advance and begun to counterattack by the end of 1941 in the Battle of Moscow – before any supplies had reached the USSR from the USA, Britain or Canada
The question is not whether USSR halted the German advance but whether or not the German advance could have been halted indefinitely. American aid was the USSR's fuel to defeat Germany. Whether you like it or not, the leader of the USSR would agree with me that the Soviets would not have been able to keep the Germans away forever. Unless you can provide a source to dispute Joseph Stalin, then your argument cannot be taken seriously.
Calling me an idiot based on the fact that you disagree with my opinions
I have all the necessary evidence to say that my opinion on the situation is a fact. If you cannot logically put the evidence I have given to you into application, then you are an idiot.
if i post on a debate with two very narrow options it doesnt mean i beleive whole heartedly in either one
You need to understand that its either one or the other; there was no gray area in that debate. Either the US was needed in World War II or it wasn't. If the only conclusion that you were trying to make was that the USSR deserves a lot of the credit for WWII, then all of your arguments on that debate were irrelevant. It seems, however, that you were not just trying to say that the USSR deserves a lot of the credit for WWII, that would be a waste of time. Throughout your replies you seemed to agree with Axmeister, as you basically took over for him in arguing with me; saying such things as "to be honest he propbably does have a bit of a piont" while failing to give any consideration to my side. Also, although hes not the best example to use, Axmeister was under the impression that you were completely on his side: "Gary is arguing the same point of view I am." Now how did he come to that conclusion? There was a reason why you used the "agree" tag on that debate.
the reality is my views stem from observation of how western power has systematically raped and pilaged the third world.
So, you shouldn't be disputing my arguments where I am saying that you do not like the Western World..........
Your simple snide derision can hardly conceal your unbelievable ignorance and conceit.
What I said was neither ignorant nor conceited.
I said no such thing and i challenge you to produce a statement proving the above accusation
The debate was called something like "Britain didn't need Americas help to win the War(WWII)" and all of your arguments were on the "agree" side.
Also i consider the accusation quite petty
This debate concerns your dislike or like of the Western World; it doesn't matter that you think its petty because its the perfect example to prove that you do not like the US.
After Axmeister, Garry77777 is probably the person who likes the western world the least on this website. Both being the idiots that they are, they tried to say that the US deserved no credit for its work in WW2.
Implementation of the death penalty establishes a zero recidivism rate, which means that the death of the criminal will destroy any possible chance that he could commit a crime. In the past, murderers have gotten parole and have been released from jail to start killing again.
The overall IQ of England seems to be higher than that of the US.
What? How? That doesn't even make sense and I know for a fact that you have no evidence to support yourself.
the piont i was making is that you have no way of knowing what the international community felt after 9/11
I believe the source I gave you examined that. I could give you more if you wish.
sure i don't think anyone was happy about it (except the extremists) but to say the world was weeping is only your own ego talking
Yeah, it was a hyperbole.
The fact is the entire arab world probably felt you had finally gotten a taste of your own medicine
My argument is backed up by sources. Your argument is a guess as seen with the word "probably."
i don't have any survey's of public opinion to back that up but neither do you
"In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute's silence at Tehran's football stadium."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/
"Iranian women light candles in Tehran's Mohseni Square in memory of the victims of the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. Even the most hardline Islamic clerics, who despise the United States, have been shocked into silence by the attacks"
http://www.time.com/time/europe/
i don't even need to rebuke this statement.
Oh of course. Better to not try I guess...
Source please.
"Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."
http://www.time.com/time/printout/
their motivations were self interested and they laregly achieved what they set out to achieve
The US gave away $760 billion(adjusted for inflation) and asked for none of it back; that doesn't seem very "self interested" to me.
every thing the US in WW2 was planned and it was planned in order to maximise the advantage if the US over everyone else.
We produced equipment and supplies for the Allies for free and lost more money and over 400,000 soldiers fighting the Axis. That doesn't seem very advantageous.
when i see a nation acquiring great power and wealth im not naive enough to think it happened by accident, nothing like that happens by accident.
World War II destroyed the nations more powerful than the United States. Our manufacturing processes were not harmed and we were able to expand production to supply other countries in need. Was it planned for other countries to be destroyed so the US could build them back up again? No.
I beleive they were, at least in order to assure victory in the time frame within which is was achieved
Then why are you agreeing that "Britain didn't need Americas help to win the war(WWII)"?
im not saying without them the war would not have won
Refer to the source I gave you on Stalin's comments.
I don't think the families of the 1.2 million Iraqis that have been killed since the start of the invasion in 2003 would consider it a ridiculous unsubstantiated assertion.
This statement along with the source that followed does nothing to disprove what the international community felt on 9/11. All it does is examine how Muslims feel during the war on terror, which is irrelevant since its after 9/11.
I don't understand how in your head this disproves what i have said, the link contains only comments from world leaders who obviously condemned the attack
You said that the Muslim community had no sympathy for the US, I gave you a source that showed that its leaders reacted in sympathetic ways towards Americans, how does that not disprove you? If an extremist like Moammar Gadhafi called that attacks horrifying and called for aid for the US, then it would be highly probable that his citizens would feel the same way. I mean even the Taliban leaders were against the attack.
No not at all but it is also follish to think that most Britons support american actions cause i can tell very few do.
This debate is not about modern American foreign policy; its about how much the US was needed in WWII.
they contribted alot to the winning of WW2
Well lol thats what this debate is about. I do not understand why you are on the other side.
it is proportionally insignificant when compared to that of the USSR
Did you actually read my posts? The success of the USSR in WWII was based upon American intervention. Stalin said that without American aid the USSR would have fallen to Germany, therefore the US was needed in WWII. That is what this debate is about.
It doesnt need a source, its called logic, cause and effect, all events are connected this way, a coincidence is simply an event that lacks a definitive causal connection. As most events can be explained by investigating the chain of causality linking them together. As most events don't lack a causal link the ones that do can be said to occur much more infrequently
Just because an event lacks a causal connection, does not mean that that event was planned to occur. This is the difference: you are arguing that the US's ascension to world superpower was an effect of WWII, a planned event, so it was, in effect, planned to occur; I am arguing that nobody planned it, so it was never supposed to occur as part of some plan. I dont think something like determinism is applicable in this situation.
The US weren't just in the right place at the right time and to be honest i cannot understnad how you can even think this.
Think of it this way: the US, at the beginning of WWII, was in a very favorable position relative to other industrialized countries. It did not face the threat of the standing Axis armies invading its borders, therefore it was not anywhere near as affected as the next strongest countries in the world. It was also in the position to make money off of the war since its industrialized processes were not affected by the war and were not fully needed by the US itself. Was it planned by Americans to make enough money to be the strongest country in the world? No. Was it planned by Americans to start a country far enough away from Europe to avoid WWII? No, therefore we just happened to be in the most favorable position during the war.
You disagree implicitly by trying to insinuate that americas contribution was significant realative to the USSR
The USSR's victory was based off of American intervention. The Russian's would not have won had the US not helped. This debate is about whether or not the US was needed in WWII. All I am saying is that Americans contributed enough to WWII to be considered necessary for Allied victory.
Also, when you make statement like: ""Britain needed America's help to win World War II just as much as America needed Britain's help to win World War II." it gives poeple the impression you think you won the war.
The only reason why I worded it that way was because that idiot Axmeister told me something like: Britain didnt need America's help to win the war but the Allies did need its help to win. I get pushed into these ridiculous situations because Axmeister really is not intelligent at all. He just doesn't get it.
The USSR deserves all the dredit for WW2, Britain or America deserve relatively little credit by comparison.
Yes, give "all the credit" to one country. Ingenious.....
Im going to let Professor Noam Chomsky address this:
That entire statement by Chomsky does not oppose my argument. I am not saying the United States is innocent, but that it did not deserve 9/11.
Not true, much of the arab world felt that you had finally tasted some of the terror and destruction you so frequantly dish out
It seems that Axmeister is not the only one who puts forth ridiculous, unsubstantiated assertions. Here is my source: http://www.september11news.com/
Again to the best of my knowledge he is far from 1 in a million
Are you saying that it is average for Britons to believe that the United States joined at the end of WWII and did basically nothing to help the Allies? I don't think so.
american foreign policy of which you are most certainly a proponent.
Why? Because I believe the US was needed in WWII?
How do you know?
It is highly unlikely that most Britons look past the facts to conclude that America did nothing to help them in WWII.
What kind of moral equivalency argument is this?
What makes you think its an argument?
WTF?
Nice opposing argument.
in fact statistically very few things happne by conincidence
I'd like to see a source for this "fact."
that why when something does happen by coincidence it is called an outlier
Axmeister was arguing that the US took Britain's power away. I am saying that Britain lost its power because the Axis were attacking it.
you really couldn't be more wrong on this piont if you tried your claiming the exact opposite of what takes place in reality.
You didn't really oppose what I said at all. All you wrote was that very few things happen by coincidence. You didn't prove anything.....
One more time, America and Britain needed the Soviet Union otherwise Hitler would not have been beaten.
Why would you assume that I disagree with this?
I'm not really sure why you chimed in here. You didn't prove anything and you didn't bring any new facts to the argument. You argument was just commentary that is pretty much irrelevant.
Afraid of what?, I'm just bored of your arrogance and rudeness.
No your just bored of getting proved wrong.
Your country constantly claims that Britain is soft for having a monarchy.
You really know nothing about Americans.
several other countries(including Britain) has also has bombing attacks
Were any as destructive as 9/11? Nope.
but we manage to carry on and live with it.
So do we....
the world did not weep only the U.S and maybe a few others were sad about it, this is one reason why americans are so dumb to think that the whole world shares their opinions.
This has nothing to do with opinions. People died on 9/11 due to an act of terror. Nobody, at least nobody important, had an opinion that it was good.
The only reason why many Britons share their views with the U.S is that american media has a lot of influence here.
The only reason why many Britons share their views with the U.S is because they are not insane.
where was america at the beginning of both of them?
Where were we at the end?
you waited for the European colonial powers to beat each other to weakness and abuse that situation to make money and expand the interests of your own country.
The United States was the strongest country outside of Europe during the wars. We did not have to worry about being bombed. We were at the right place at the right time. Don't be paranoid. We did not plan it so we could come out on top.
That is only what they teach you in basic history, do some research and tyou might learn the truth.
You're a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You're too stubborn to believe in the facts because your inherent hatred for America blinds you. Whether you want it or not, the entire world accepts my point of view and disregards yours. Some conspiracy doesn't make the world wrong, its the fact that they are rational thinkers. They can do something you cannot, weigh the facts on different sides appropriately. You should just know that if you continue to try to argue your point of view its a waste of time because nobody will believe you and nobody will have an reason to do so. As an American speaking to a Briton in terms of WWII, all I have to say is your welcome.
There is only one reason why you would reply to my comment and then ban me from the debate: you are afraid.
I could equally state that you patriotism blinds your logic and therefore you too are too biased to be considered a rational thinker.
I'm not the one pushing the other Allies aside and saying my country deserves all the credit for WWII.
your american version is probably full of propaganda.
If knew anything about America, this might have a possible chance of being true.
I have heard many americans mock the death of Princess Diana
That's a lie. What reason do we have to mock her death? I remember when she died and all I saw were people crying.
I also remember September 11, 2001, the worst day that Americans have experienced during my lifetime. The world wept with us that day as we dug through the rubble in the hope of finding at least one person who was still alive. I am relieved that you are one in million in Britain. Although you make it seem as though British people share your views of the world, nothing could be further from the truth. The world does not work the way you want it to. When Americans suffer Britons cry; when Britons suffer Americans cry. Our country's are the greatest allies the world has ever seen and any hardship only makes that alliance stronger.
You may blame Americans for the loss of Britain's power, but there is noone to blame. The United States just happened to be at the right place at the right time, that is how the world works. I do not blame British people for anything, even fighting us in the Revolutionary War. It is just the way the world works.
You insult my country by claiming that we need protection from your useless pile of shit.
I am not degrading the pride of your country. The United States was happy to help a friend in need. The UK is our greatest ally and I am grateful for that.
I do not need to beat you in this debate because you truthfully have nothing important to say. Your view of World War II is warped and there is no arguing that. Again, I do not know why you continually try to attempt to disrespect the Americans who died, but the world is on my side when I say: Britain needed America's help to win World War II just as much as America needed Britain's help to win World War II.
