Thread: Terrorists Blowing Themselves Up on Planes

Originally Posted by Brewtality

The USA could just about kiss goodbye to any sort of diplomacy, probably all of it's foreign military bases etc... and would be totally shunned by everyone. At least.

from my knowledge the reason we have bases in other countries is cause they have contracted us to be there.. or requested us to be there to protect them.. in the rare base or two the us pays to have the land from the host country.

diplomacy? how many of those countries work with us because they fear the USA or want to do business with the USA..

The World at War shows current conflicts and or wars that are still on going thru out the world so to say that diplomacy works haaaaaaa okay sure it does. after your done fighting i guess you have to decide who gets what spoils..

When I say 'diplomacy' I'm talking about all facets of international relations including trade.

There are various reasons for US and UK military bases being all over the place. The UK still has many remnants from the Empire which have been held onto for strategic purposes. If you've got a little island somewhere then why give it back when you can whack a couple of runways and missile silos on there and use it to attack the Russians if you need to. A lot of them are there to protect strategic resouces such as oil/gas fields or potential battlefields. It's not simply a case of countries saying 'please put a military base here because we can't fend for ourselves'. Sure, some countries may feel like that but they'll get a lot more than that. And yes, I'm talking about money/trade/weapons.

If the rest of the world decided to turn it's back on the USA it wouldn't be able to do shit.

um except the US has in its past already done without the rest of the world the result of that i believe is ww1 ww2 if im not mistaken.

No one knew exactly what those bombs were going to do and they only dropped two of them (and they were fairly small ones). They had no conception of the destruction and radioactive fallout. Generals were thinking about using tactical nukes as heavy artillery to bombard coastlines ahead of infantry landings - a strategy that was totally absurd when the bombs were understood.

Also, this isn't WW2. The world isn't in chaos and facing the prospect of a massive invasion of a stubborn empire that would fight to the last man, at the cost of many many millions of lives.

You just can't compare the two situations on any level.

Originally Posted by Gosu

No one knew exactly what those bombs were going to do and they only dropped two of them (and they were fairly small ones). They had no conception of the destruction and radioactive fallout. Generals were thinking about using tactical nukes as heavy artillery to bombard coastlines ahead of infantry landings - a strategy that was totally absurd when the bombs were understood.

Also, this isn't WW2. The world isn't in chaos and facing the prospect of a massive invasion of a stubborn empire that would fight to the last man, at the cost of many many millions of lives.

You just can't compare the two situations on any level.

correct me if im wrong but the reason both of those wars were started and the reason the germans gain all of there strenght was because the economic collapse of the stock markets and the lost of jobs in europe with a promise of money and riches along with placing blame on others for the problems... germany was able to build an army of people who wanted better for themselves. why is that so different?

the atomic bomb was tested before it was dropped theres was a test bomb which was set off prior to dropping the two others.. maybe you should read up on stuff before you talk about it the test bombs name is THE GADGET you can look it up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_gadget

Originally Posted by Narrowrule

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists seem to be Muslim.

Hey, don't be silly now. Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim. In fact, has there been a terrorist attack before 9/11 that had anything to do with Islamist or Jihadist groups? Don't think so. How about the Basque seperatist group ETA? Or the various versions of the IRA or any of the other paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland? How about the numerous groups in Africa like the LRA in Uganda? There also many in South America. Don't buy the hype you're getting through the media.

Originally Posted by Gutter

correct me if im wrong but the reason both of those wars were started and the reason the germans gain all of there strenght was because the economic collapse of the stock markets and the lost of jobs in europe with a promise of money and riches along with placing blame on others for the problems... germany was able to build an army of people who wanted better for themselves. why is that so different?

The stock markets weren't really a factor with WWI. That had to do with the European Empires rearranging themselves. The fallout from that and the humiliation and decimation of Germany in the treaty of Versailles along with the recession in the 1930's provided the Nazis with a platform for election and then nationalist expansion. You don't honestly believe that both World War's were down to the United States of America do you????

I stand corrected.Brew, your point is valid. Now that you have pointed this out, I feel embarassed at my predgidical statement. I tend to be narrowminded at times

Originally Posted by Gutter

correct me if im wrong but the reason both of those wars were started and the reason the germans gain all of there strenght was because the economic collapse of the stock markets and the lost of jobs in europe with a promise of money and riches along with placing blame on others for the problems... germany was able to build an army of people who wanted better for themselves. why is that so different?

the atomic bomb was tested before it was dropped theres was a test bomb which was set off prior to dropping the two others.. maybe you should read up on stuff before you talk about it the test bombs name is THE GADGET you can look it up here The gadget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany isn't really relevant to the nukes and even less relevant to whether the world for stand for a nuclear attack today. The war in Europe had been over for months before the bombs were dropped on Japan.

Gadget was a much smaller version and was really just a test to see if the technology worked and the bomb would actually blow up to the scale they predicted. It did not give them any clue as to its effect on a populated area, much less the long-term effects of radiation.

Originally Posted by Brewtality

Hey, don't be silly now. Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim. In fact, has there been a terrorist attack before 9/11 that had anything to do with Islamist or Jihadist groups? Don't think so. How about the Basque seperatist group ETA? Or the various versions of the IRA or any of the other paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland? How about the numerous groups in Africa like the LRA in Uganda? There also many in South America. Don't buy the hype you're getting through the media.



The stock markets weren't really a factor with WWI. That had to do with the European Empires rearranging themselves. The fallout from that and the humiliation and decimation of Germany in the treaty of Versailles along with the recession in the 1930's provided the Nazis with a platform for election and then nationalist expansion. You don't honestly believe that both World War's were down to the United States of America do you????

ww2 was kinda simular and the reason america went to war with germany is cause germany declaired war on the US

Part of the reason for going to war against the Germany, Japan and Italy. In March 1940: the Lend-Lease act was passed stating Roosevelt could direct aid to whomever he wanted. This meant that the US was no longer neutral. The US ended up contributing 42 billion dollars to the war effort by 1945. With Hitler taking over Europe, FDR saw fit to aid the British and French troops with arms, etc.

note this is not the amount of money spent on the american soldiers this is money loaned out by the united state to these countries to buy weapons food etc..

ww1 The U.S. had huge economic investments with the British and French. If they were to lose, then they would not be able to pay the U.S. debt back (amounting to about two billion dollars while Germany only borrowed a mere 27 million).

im not saying its the only reason but one of the main reasons that the united states entered the war.. and as for if i believe it was down to the united states.. um yeah if you take away the amount of supplies and later troops that the united states provided in both wars.. yes. it was down the the united states.. who do you think would have stopped germany if it wasnt for the united states?

America only entered the war because Japan attacked them, which means Germany then declared war. Otherwise America probably would have been isolationist for the whole time.

yeah, thats a possability go tell that to old crusty stache in your time machine. i dont know what the out come would have been without the americans involvement in ww2 in europe but i dont think Dday would have happened without the americans either way if it got to the point where the united states would have loss money im sure that our money hungry goverment would have found a way to get the people to get behind the idea that it was good to go to war. after all thats what our country is best at.

Originally Posted by Narrowrule

I stand corrected.Brew, your point is valid. Now that you have pointed this out, I feel embarassed at my predgidical statement. I tend to be narrowminded at times

We're all the same!

Originally Posted by Gutter

Part of the reason for going to war against the Germany, Japan and Italy. In March 1940: the Lend-Lease act was passed stating Roosevelt could direct aid to whomever he wanted. This meant that the US was no longer neutral. The US ended up contributing 42 billion dollars to the war effort by 1945. With Hitler taking over Europe, FDR saw fit to aid the British and French troops with arms, etc.

note this is not the amount of money spent on the american soldiers this is money loaned out by the united state to these countries to buy weapons food etc..

I'm yet to get to the part that says anything about economics being the driving factor behind WWII? It's pretty obvious to anybody who went to school why WWII started and I don't really think that needs debating here.

ww1 The U.S. had huge economic investments with the British and French. If they were to lose, then they would not be able to pay the U.S. debt back (amounting to about two billion dollars while Germany only borrowed a mere 27 million).

Well maybe that was one of the reasons for the USA wanting to get involved but as you should know the war was well under way by that point!

im not saying its the only reason but one of the main reasons that the united states entered the war.. and as for if i believe it was down to the united states.. um yeah if you take away the amount of supplies and later troops that the united states provided in both wars.. yes. it was down the the united states.. who do you think would have stopped germany if it wasnt for the united states?

You fool. Have you just been watching History Channel programmes with sweeping orchestral music and the word 'hero' being spoken approximately every 15 seconds? Don't let it hurt your pride dude but it was RUSSIA that sorted us out in those 2 wars. RUSSIA. Did the USA's military do a great job and help out a lot? Of course, and it would have been a longer and probably a bloodier war without them but make no mistake that it was the RUSSIANS who made the sacrifices and the RUSSIANS that turned the tide of the war. Around 10 MILLION Russian soldiers and another 10 million civilians died in WWI compared to 400,000 US Soldiers and less than 2000 civilians (about the number who died in my city) from the USA.

Fucking hell man. Read some books or just pull your head out of your arse instead of speaking out of it. All this 'USA won the war for Europe' stuff is bullshit mate just so you know.

Originally Posted by Brewtality

We're all the same!



I'm yet to get to the part that says anything about economics being the driving factor behind WWII? It's pretty obvious to anybody who went to school why WWII started and I don't really think that needs debating here.

Well maybe that was one of the reasons for the USA wanting to get involved but as you should know the war was well under way by that point!

You fool. Have you just been watching History Channel programmes with sweeping orchestral music and the word 'hero' being spoken approximately every 15 seconds? Don't let it hurt your pride dude but it was RUSSIA that sorted us out in those 2 wars. RUSSIA. Did the USA's military do a great job and help out a lot? Of course, and it would have been a longer and probably a bloodier war without them but make no mistake that it was the RUSSIANS who made the sacrifices and the RUSSIANS that turned the tide of the war. Around 10 MILLION Russian soldiers and another 10 million civilians died in WWI compared to 400,000 US Soldiers and less than 2000 civilians (about the number who died in my city) from the USA.

Fucking hell man. Read some books or just pull your head out of your arse instead of speaking out of it. All this 'USA won the war for Europe' stuff is bullshit mate just so you know.

heeh russia dropped out of the first ww to have a civil war of there own.. i dont see how they sorted it out.. who did they liberate? yeah they defended there own country.. and had a major role.

as for ww2 im pretty sure without the americans hitler would have turned all his forces against the russians instead of having to fight on 2 fronts yeah russia had lost more men in both fights they where in both battles longer and the majority of the fighting took place in their country but without the americans supplying arms the other allies would have folded.

correct me if im wrong but wasnt russia at first allies with the germans? to say they sorted things outs kinda funny.. they grabbed up the most land out of all the emipires of europe.. of course they lost the most they gained the most too.


42 billion dollars back then was a shit ton of money think about if a country today lost 505,603,000,014 whichs is what the infation amount comes to

Whatever mate. Doesn't look like you have much of a clue what you're talking about though.

Nobody is saying that the USA did fuck all during WWII but up until 1943, it was mostly about making money by lending and selling equipment. Of course that was important because Britain was basically fighting the war alone in Western Europe and there was heavy disruption to industry due to the fact that Britain actually got bombed. In the East, the Russians were similarly fighting an invasion (which took up over half of the Axis forces in Europe) which took a lot of the pressure off the forces in the West. 75-80% of the Allied fighting in Europe was done by the British and Soviets so it's a bit rich to say that the US came over and won the war for everyone. Especially in light of the casualties inflicted upon the Soviets and the fact they wiped out 60% of the Wermacht on their own.

Look at it this way: Britain could not have defeated Germany without US help. The US wouldn't have been able to do shit without the British and neither would've been on the winning side without the Soviets.

As for WWI, dude, you need to read up or hell, maybe even just watch a decent TV documentary! US soldiers counted for around 2% of Allied/Entente deaths in WWI. Russia made up 30% and the British Empire 16%. Speaks for itself. Yes money is important but you seem to have learnt your history from watching films or at leas that's how you frame your views because by saying 'it was all down to the USA' you really are missing the point COMPLETELY and at the same time you're ignoring history and the nature of wars like these.

And how the FUCK have I ended up talking about this? Nobody with half a brain needs all this explaining. I can't be bothered explaining that two World Wars were not won by one country. It's stupid.