miked10270 0 #26 November 26, 2004 The Americans helped the Brits out in WWII for the best of reasons: Prior to 07/12/1941: Arms sales and the "Lend-Lease" agreement. It was widely held that while Germany was unlikely to invade Britain, Britain & Empire was unable to defeat the Axis. It would take something insane, like The USSR & America to join forces with Britain. Meanwhile, there were weapons to sell (and money to make). Under Lend-Lease, America got military bases on the doorstep of a future German dominated Europe. Post 07/12/1941: Japan attacked America. America declared war on Japan. Under the terms of the German-Japan treaty, Germany was obliged to declare war on Japan's enemy (America) and render Japan aid. America did not declare war on Germany... It was the other way around! Regarding the Ukraine: Like so many states created after WWI, the collapse of the austro-Hungarian Empire, and The Russian Revolution, Ukraine's boundaries were drawn on a map with little thought for ethnicity. The country is divided between the pro-Europe northwest, and the pro-Russian southeast. Hopefully, it will be a "velvet" secession with Ukraine becoming 2 states rather like the former Czechoslovakia. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #27 November 26, 2004 "If Europe doesn't like what is happening there, it's their problem - let them do something about it." I don't think 'Europe' will do anything about it. Intervening in a civil war is always tricky John, even the highly regarded UN is normally reluctant to get involved unless there is some sort of humanitarian crisis, such as ethnic cleansing etc. This one is really interesting, there has ostensibly been some sort of shenanigans going on, and the Ukranians are having none of it. The party objecting are pro EU, the party accused of shenanigans are loyal to the old Russia. Putin would obviously like to have the Ukraine 'on his side', however the world is watching now, and he is trying very hard to get the rest of the world to be more sympathetic to his causes, so he'll have to tread carefully. Its all about power inflence. I really hope this situation can be resolved peacefully, so far its been a fairly well behaved 'uprising', I just don't know how this will pan out. "Hey, I know what to do: Let's start a food-for-oil program in the Ukraine, and then France and the U.N. will jump in to siphon off profits intended for needy people." If the Ukraine has oil, why haven't you invaded already? Come on what are you guys waiting for, oil at 100 bucks a barrel? I mean there must be some excuse you can conjure up... hidden nukes, terror training camps, really bad guy in charge, potential to destabilise the region, lack of obvious democratic process? -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #28 November 26, 2004 "America got military bases on the doorstep of a future German dominated Europe." Or a Soviet dominated Europe? Just stirring the pot a little for some friday fun.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #29 November 26, 2004 Quotehidden nukes, Yep! Remember all that nuclear material they hid under concrete in Chernobyl during the 1980's! Quoteterror training camps? That would obviously include Spetznaz! Quotereally bad guy in charge? He will be shortly! Once the CIA get's some "irrefutable evidence"! It's already been shown that Kiev's Chicken industry presents a "clear & present danger" to Colonel Saunders of Kentucky! Especially the ready-cooked stuff they ship out from Chernobyl!!! Quotepotential to destabilise the region? The region WILL become unstable (under the weight of all the Abrams & Bradleys)! Quotelack of obvious democratic process? That's an easy one. They probably used the same voting machines as Ohio! So... I'm sure that relief is on it's way for those poor oppressed Guatemal...Somal...Yugoslav...Afgha... Sudane...irani... Ukranians! Then all will be well and the world will be at peace. They DO have oil... Don't they? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #30 November 26, 2004 Jesus everyone why are you trying to turn this into a US vs. EU thread? Why do the Yanks kick off by bashing the UK and whining about the US being "expected" to do things? That's not what this is about! All I have done here is try to start a conversation about the situation in the Ukraine. It's been going on for the best part of a week and is quite a big event. I had expected a thread here and was surprised that none had been started. US Holidays be damned this has been going on a week man - and still no one from that side of the Atlantic appears to have a clue what's happening. Even where some have posted info it smacks of a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. This is not an excuse to start a US/EU argument again. The Ukraine issue has NOTHING to do with either of them. We are not heads of state - we are not going to do anything about it by posting here – this is JUST an internet forum – ALL we do is talk. All I was looking to do was have a conversation about the matter. My post here is not an entreaty to the POTUS to come over and save anyone's bacon - where in the world do Americans get off trying to make it so? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 29 #31 November 26, 2004 just went through the news - and i have to admit that i am astonished for there seem to be good news. the former president of poland lech walenza and former chech president vaclav havel are visiting ukrania and they are stressing the need to abide violence at all means one of the top secret service guys appeared on tv and urged police and troops to take sides with opposition forces protesters are blocking the buildings of authorities - they can kleave but they wont let themin afterwards so maybe we will see another velvet revolution?The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #32 November 26, 2004 Quotejust went through the news - and i have to admit that i am astonished for there seem to be good news. Yes there is. Since The Ukraine emerged from the Communist regime, with it's focus on punishing defiance against the state, Ukraine has made fantastic strides in the areas of both porn AND humour! See how much happier everyone is under the free market? Mike. EDITED to add: Paulipod! I mentioned PORN!!! THat means that these images are NOT WORK SAFE!!!!!!! I assume everyone else will automatically realise this(?). Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #33 November 26, 2004 "They DO have oil... Don't they?" Ukraine has around 300 potentially viable oil and gas fields, of which about 200 are currently being worked. Its a net impoter of crude, primarily from Russia, Ukraine exports a lot of petroleum products, mainly via the Bosperous, and land pipelines to Europe. But Yukos (big Russian oil company) is in the process of going pear shaped. All their executives are in the process of fleeing the country, so there goes 20% of Russia's production, about 2% of global oil production. Ukraine's energy profile here. http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/edc/countries/Ukraine.asp Gas is the big thing in Europe, with a declining demand for fuel oil for electricity generation, Ukraine is one of the world's largest gas consumers. Lets hear it for 'Free Market Socialism'. Edit again, after all these years I still struggle with mark up.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #34 November 26, 2004 I must say those are fine examples of the triumph of the free market over the old regime. ... and they're pretty work safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 29 #35 November 26, 2004 last pic is really nice - maybe i'll photoshop it with a pic of my boss & circulate it round the office The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #36 November 26, 2004 For the elucidation & education of all, I've found a suitable picture of the Ukrainian Flag. You can see the flag at the bottom left of the picture (which you may not wish to open at work!) Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #38 November 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteAmerican foriegn policy based on the guiding principle to help people? I dont think so That may be the PR front - self interest is certainly the most part. If that is the guiding principle of the U.S., then why did the U.S. help you (England) in WWII? Same reason the UK helped the US in WWII. Self interest, as has already been stated.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #39 November 26, 2004 QuoteHas America arrived there yet? I am sure if it has hit the news mr.WMD..sorry GWB is hatching a plan to kill some nice loving family's Since you don't have the balls to come out of hiding from behind your anonymous User-ID, your statement means nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #40 November 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf that is the guiding principle of the U.S., then why did the U.S. help you (England) in WWII? I really cant believe you are bringing that up again! But, as you mention it... I am pretty sure it was self interest that was the motive for the US involvment and nothing to do with a desire to help me(who lives in England). I'm still waiting for you to specify what that self-interest was... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #41 November 26, 2004 Billions loaned out through the Lend-Lease acts? Billions that were availble in selling of war time goods...ties with our largest trading partner at that time.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #42 November 26, 2004 QuoteBillions loaned out through the Lend-Lease acts? Billions that were availble in selling of war time goods...ties with our largest trading partner at that time. Ah yes, the evil "corporation" conspiracy theory. We sent 600,000 of our men to their deaths, just so we could make a little money selling war goods to England. And I suppose that Haliburton had to be involved somehow too! We couldn't possibly have gotten involved just because we recognized evil and wanted to help people be free. Nah, that can't be it. Oh, and the U.S. forgave *billions* of dollars of that debt, such that it would not have to be repaid. Hmmm, there goes that "profit" theory... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #43 November 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteBillions loaned out through the Lend-Lease acts? Billions that were availble in selling of war time goods...ties with our largest trading partner at that time. Ah yes, the evil "corporation" conspiracy theory. We sent 600,000 of our men to their deaths, just so we could make a little money selling war goods to England. And I suppose that Haliburton had to be involved somehow too! We couldn't possibly have gotten involved just because we recognized evil and wanted to help people be free. Nah, that can't be it. Oh, and the U.S. forgave *billions* of dollars of that debt, such that it would not have to be repaid. Hmmm, there goes that "profit" theory... It was self-interest. I'm sure you can work out why.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #44 November 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf that is the guiding principle of the U.S., then why did the U.S. help you (England) in WWII? I'm still waiting for you to specify what that self-interest was... Paulipod didn't.... I did! But here it is again (in soundbite form)"Prior to 07/12/1941: Arms sales and the "Lend-Lease" agreement. It was widely held that while Germany, having failed to win air superiorority in The Battle of Britain was unlikely to invade Britain, Britain & Empire was unable to defeat the Axis. It would take something insane, like The USSR & America to join forces with Britain. Meanwhile, there were weapons to sell (and money to make). Under Lend-Lease, America got military bases on the doorstep of a future German dominated Europe. Post 07/12/1941: Japan attacked America. America declared war on Japan. Under the terms of the German-Japan treaty, Germany was obliged to declare war on Japan's enemy (America) and render Japan aid. America did not declare war on Germany... It was the other way around! Then America and Britain found they had a common enemy." QuoteOh, and the U.S. forgave *billions* of dollars of that debt, such that it would not have to be repaid. The US bases in Britain needed to be made bigger for jets in the early part of the cold war. The leases were extended to around 2053. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #45 November 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf that is the guiding principle of the U.S., then why did the U.S. help you (England) in WWII? I'm still waiting for you to specify what that self-interest was... Paulipod didn't.... I did! But here it is again (in soundbite form)"Prior to 07/12/1941: Arms sales and the "Lend-Lease" agreement. It was widely held that while Germany, having failed to win air superiorority in The Battle of Britain was unlikely to invade Britain, Britain & Empire was unable to defeat the Axis. It would take something insane, like The USSR & America to join forces with Britain. Meanwhile, there were weapons to sell (and money to make). Under Lend-Lease, America got military bases on the doorstep of a future German dominated Europe. Post 07/12/1941: Japan attacked America. America declared war on Japan. Under the terms of the German-Japan treaty, Germany was obliged to declare war on Japan's enemy (America) and render Japan aid. America did not declare war on Germany... It was the other way around! Then America and Britain found they had a common enemy." QuoteOh, and the U.S. forgave *billions* of dollars of that debt, such that it would not have to be repaid. The US bases in Britain needed to be made bigger for jets in the early part of the cold war. The leases were extended to around 2053. Mike. Nazi Germany's fate was sealed when Hitler delayed Barbarossa to bail out Mussolini in Yugoslavia and Greece, summer 1941. That was probably the pivotal German mistake of the war. Had Barbarossa started on time the USSR probably would have fallen by the end of 1941. Winning the Battle of Britain ensured that Britain could not be invaded. The survival of the USSR in 1941-42 guaranteed an eventual German defeat. Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" speech is very interesting.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #46 November 26, 2004 QuoteI don't think 'Europe' will do anything about it. Intervening in a civil war is always tricky John, even the highly regarded UN is normally reluctant to get involved unless there is some sort of humanitarian crisis, such as ethnic cleansing etc. Yeah, let the wonderful UN do something about it. Ya know like Darfor?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #47 November 26, 2004 Also, its probably safe to say that the self interest would be about not allowing any other power to have the size and ability to threaten your national security. So aside from japan and all the valid additional reasoning the other guys have mentioned.... saving your own bacon probably comes into it. In fact, off the top of my head, I cant think of any nation that has gone to war to save the poor souls of another sovereign nation.... maybe I am just not good at history Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #48 November 27, 2004 QuoteWe sent 600,000 of our men to their deaths, just so we could make a little money selling war goods to England. Christ, I can't believe we're getting into this yet again. You realize that if the UK had just one cent for every time some nutter started this argument on the internet, the US would be paying half it’s GDP to the UK anually. The US didn't commit to the war till Dec 41 - that's more than two and a third years after it started! On top of that the US only committed after it was actually attacked by the Japs on it's own soil. I can't believe you actually want to go down this road - yet again. And just to put your point into perspective; if you insist on bringing up the 600,000 killed and wounded American's - the Russians gave roughly 60 million people to keep the world free. That's 100 Russians for every one American! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #49 November 27, 2004 QuoteSince you don't have the balls to come out of hiding from behind your anonymous User-ID, your statement means nothing. no need to be rude mr. john rich. i was just in the middle of changing it when i had to log out and have not been bothered to do it. here you go i hope this will make you feel more inclined not to be so rude. my statement was extremley sarcastic and was never meant to mean anything. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #50 November 27, 2004 Quote In fact, off the top of my head, I cant think of any nation that has gone to war to save the poor souls of another sovereign nation.... maybe I am just not good at history Are you excluding those that went to war on account of treaty obligations with other nations?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,150 #45 November 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf that is the guiding principle of the U.S., then why did the U.S. help you (England) in WWII? I'm still waiting for you to specify what that self-interest was... Paulipod didn't.... I did! But here it is again (in soundbite form)"Prior to 07/12/1941: Arms sales and the "Lend-Lease" agreement. It was widely held that while Germany, having failed to win air superiorority in The Battle of Britain was unlikely to invade Britain, Britain & Empire was unable to defeat the Axis. It would take something insane, like The USSR & America to join forces with Britain. Meanwhile, there were weapons to sell (and money to make). Under Lend-Lease, America got military bases on the doorstep of a future German dominated Europe. Post 07/12/1941: Japan attacked America. America declared war on Japan. Under the terms of the German-Japan treaty, Germany was obliged to declare war on Japan's enemy (America) and render Japan aid. America did not declare war on Germany... It was the other way around! Then America and Britain found they had a common enemy." QuoteOh, and the U.S. forgave *billions* of dollars of that debt, such that it would not have to be repaid. The US bases in Britain needed to be made bigger for jets in the early part of the cold war. The leases were extended to around 2053. Mike. Nazi Germany's fate was sealed when Hitler delayed Barbarossa to bail out Mussolini in Yugoslavia and Greece, summer 1941. That was probably the pivotal German mistake of the war. Had Barbarossa started on time the USSR probably would have fallen by the end of 1941. Winning the Battle of Britain ensured that Britain could not be invaded. The survival of the USSR in 1941-42 guaranteed an eventual German defeat. Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" speech is very interesting.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #46 November 26, 2004 QuoteI don't think 'Europe' will do anything about it. Intervening in a civil war is always tricky John, even the highly regarded UN is normally reluctant to get involved unless there is some sort of humanitarian crisis, such as ethnic cleansing etc. Yeah, let the wonderful UN do something about it. Ya know like Darfor?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #47 November 26, 2004 Also, its probably safe to say that the self interest would be about not allowing any other power to have the size and ability to threaten your national security. So aside from japan and all the valid additional reasoning the other guys have mentioned.... saving your own bacon probably comes into it. In fact, off the top of my head, I cant think of any nation that has gone to war to save the poor souls of another sovereign nation.... maybe I am just not good at history Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #48 November 27, 2004 QuoteWe sent 600,000 of our men to their deaths, just so we could make a little money selling war goods to England. Christ, I can't believe we're getting into this yet again. You realize that if the UK had just one cent for every time some nutter started this argument on the internet, the US would be paying half it’s GDP to the UK anually. The US didn't commit to the war till Dec 41 - that's more than two and a third years after it started! On top of that the US only committed after it was actually attacked by the Japs on it's own soil. I can't believe you actually want to go down this road - yet again. And just to put your point into perspective; if you insist on bringing up the 600,000 killed and wounded American's - the Russians gave roughly 60 million people to keep the world free. That's 100 Russians for every one American! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #49 November 27, 2004 QuoteSince you don't have the balls to come out of hiding from behind your anonymous User-ID, your statement means nothing. no need to be rude mr. john rich. i was just in the middle of changing it when i had to log out and have not been bothered to do it. here you go i hope this will make you feel more inclined not to be so rude. my statement was extremley sarcastic and was never meant to mean anything. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #50 November 27, 2004 Quote In fact, off the top of my head, I cant think of any nation that has gone to war to save the poor souls of another sovereign nation.... maybe I am just not good at history Are you excluding those that went to war on account of treaty obligations with other nations?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Ron 10 #46 November 26, 2004 QuoteI don't think 'Europe' will do anything about it. Intervening in a civil war is always tricky John, even the highly regarded UN is normally reluctant to get involved unless there is some sort of humanitarian crisis, such as ethnic cleansing etc. Yeah, let the wonderful UN do something about it. Ya know like Darfor?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #47 November 26, 2004 Also, its probably safe to say that the self interest would be about not allowing any other power to have the size and ability to threaten your national security. So aside from japan and all the valid additional reasoning the other guys have mentioned.... saving your own bacon probably comes into it. In fact, off the top of my head, I cant think of any nation that has gone to war to save the poor souls of another sovereign nation.... maybe I am just not good at history Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #48 November 27, 2004 QuoteWe sent 600,000 of our men to their deaths, just so we could make a little money selling war goods to England. Christ, I can't believe we're getting into this yet again. You realize that if the UK had just one cent for every time some nutter started this argument on the internet, the US would be paying half it’s GDP to the UK anually. The US didn't commit to the war till Dec 41 - that's more than two and a third years after it started! On top of that the US only committed after it was actually attacked by the Japs on it's own soil. I can't believe you actually want to go down this road - yet again. And just to put your point into perspective; if you insist on bringing up the 600,000 killed and wounded American's - the Russians gave roughly 60 million people to keep the world free. That's 100 Russians for every one American! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #49 November 27, 2004 QuoteSince you don't have the balls to come out of hiding from behind your anonymous User-ID, your statement means nothing. no need to be rude mr. john rich. i was just in the middle of changing it when i had to log out and have not been bothered to do it. here you go i hope this will make you feel more inclined not to be so rude. my statement was extremley sarcastic and was never meant to mean anything. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #50 November 27, 2004 Quote In fact, off the top of my head, I cant think of any nation that has gone to war to save the poor souls of another sovereign nation.... maybe I am just not good at history Are you excluding those that went to war on account of treaty obligations with other nations?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
