BF2S Forums How responsible is the US for winning WWII?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Damn, I just remembered CyrustheVirus was CamPoe's alternate account...

hax. i swear that's NAUGHTY!!1 but it's funny, watch..

wars come and go, conflicts and hatreds die off.... but the war of ignorance rages on eternaly

The fate of the dollar:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1126036.stm

The truth is that nobody really knows whether the US economy is heading for a recession.  Some think so, some don't.  But this thread is about their role in WWII not America's dominance in today's world.

Vilham wrote:

Pieeater...

1. Your ecconomy is doing the worst its done in years, let me put it in simple terms, $2 per £1...

2. Your technology isnt the best, Challenger 2 is the best allround tank no doubt, the new missle destroyer that England is introducing in 2009 is the most technologically advanced warship ever.

3. WWW what you are infact using was invented by a British scientist.

1.  Well if you are thinking like that, the $1 = 117 Japanese Yen!  So woohoo!  I looks like we are kickin' ass in Japan!!!  Exchange rates between two currencies are too broad of a topic to really discuss.  Its all relative...  I'm guessing a Coke in the UK is about £0.5 in a vending machine..?  That would mean it is $1.  Which is 120 Yen in Tokyo.  So...  Lets just use Kilograms instead of Pounds to act like we weigh less...  =-)  I'm skinny.  Look at me!  (I am though...)

2. As stated in the attached article, its not necessarily the tank that always makes it the best.  Its the crew.  And every tank has its own strengths and weaknesses.

The article states:
"Because the Americans have more proven combat technology, the M-1 would still be first, but the Challenger 2 would be second and the German Leopard third. "

The M1 Abrams is combat proven unlike the Challenger.  Also, in an OVERALL perspective the US technology is much better.   You can nit-pick at certain things, but watching the history channel on the weapons that the US government actually tells us about that aren't kept secret, I'm pretty damn impressed. 

The United States spent $466.0 billion on Military in 2004, and the UK spent United Kingdom $31.7 billion in 2002.  Do you honestly think that the UK can have better overall technology if their spending is under 7% of the United States?  Granted not all goes towards R&D, but a huge portion does...

Tank Site:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp
Military Spending:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … ending.htm

3.  So your saying that one scientist invented the internet?  He just whipped it up and there it was?  I would say that an American University (possibly with the help of a British Scientist, name???) made the stage for creating the internet.  It is pretty much fact that the United States is credited with making the internet.  That is why we have so much control over the internet.  Which is why the worthless UN wants to try and take that control away and give it to themselves...  So the corrupt Oil-for-Food crew can go in there and rape and pillage....  I have no doubt that people from other countries helped with the creation of the internet, but the US still recieves the credit.

Last edited by Mr.Pieeater (2006-12-15 06:43:43)

CyrusTheVirus wrote:

Herc82 wrote:

Well... that's good then... So you don't need the 'coalition of the willing' anymore? ;-)

Hehe, GW tells Tony to jump, Tony says 'How high?' - that's the way things work. Tony knows better than to listen to the whining of a minority of anti-war types.

Oh my god, how narrow-minded you are.

Of course the US are an undoubted superpower, but people like you make it look like you had always won everything and the world would be totally lost without you.
Well, the latter is correct. Without the US, Terrorists would maybe attack Europe more often. Thank you, America!

To properly answer your question which seems more like a rhetorical statement to me, I would like to know exactly who you are referring to when you make the following statement. 

adam1503 wrote:

" A lot of Americans seem to believe that their country was solely responsible for saving Europe from Nazi occupation during WWII.  They claim to have single-handedly won the war and to have saved everyone."

You say " a lot of Americans" and "they" so please provide some actual names of Americans who made this statement and your source (s).

i think russia really won the war in europe, i mean they beat the germans out of their own country and won in berlin. America won the war in the Pacific, and Britain won the battle of britain, the allies could have won WW2 without america but it would have dragged on longer. thats what i think

CyrusTheVirus wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Cyrus, your country is the one crying our for help right now.  What was it George said after that power shift in the US... "Got any ideas?". He hasn't got a clue what to do has he.  But this post isnt about Iraq, its about America's arrogant attitude to the rest of the world and how many Americans like yourself seem to think they are better than everyone else.  Not all Americans, mind, but some.

Well let me see. We're the richest country in the world. We have the best military in the world. We're the leading country in the world in innovation and technology development. We selflessly step in to liberate oppressed people across the globe, including Western Europe in WWII. Better? You do the math.

best army in the world? from what i hear the American army is just a bunch of poorly trained cowboys an the only reason there decent is the fact that there bigger than most in numbers as for the technology? care to share which is better than anyone else's? 

plus the us economy is dependent on china if china wanted they could put the us is a hell of a lot of trouble

adam1503 wrote:

arson wrote:

To properly answer your question which seems more like a rhetorical statement to me, I would like to know exactly who you are referring to when you make the following statement. 

adam1503 wrote:

" A lot of Americans seem to believe that their country was solely responsible for saving Europe from Nazi occupation during WWII.  They claim to have single-handedly won the war and to have saved everyone."

You say " a lot of Americans" and "they" so please provide some actual names of Americans who made this statement and your source (s).

Would you like me to name every last American who shares this view? No, of course not.  The statement I made was worded so as to avoid accusing every American of having this view.  There are of course many many well-educated American people who are not disillusioned about their country's (no doubt important) contrubution to the war.  However, those Americans who do carry this opinion of the war are those who appear to be (to me, at least) uneducated and blindly patriotic to the extreme.  These people are those who think America has the right to dominate over every other country, those who think America can do no wrong.

Yes If you make a statement be prepared to back it up. Otherwise your just full of shit.

WoSL ChemWarrior wrote:

the numbers for that battle alone were over 6,000 killed and 20,000 wounded. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined there were approximatly 214,000 killed.  So basically 9 battles like Iwo Jima. Remind me, is there more than 9 islands in the Pacific Rim? Just curious if you know geography better than you think Americans know history.

I think, there's a difference between being wounded and being killed. Among the 214k killed people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are only those, who died instantly or in the days afterwards. But what can we say about the children of those victims?
Well, of course, doing cold maths you're right - no one doubts that. Still, the aftertaste is more than bitter, if you ask me.

And at the guy saying that a lot of Americans seem to believe (...), well - I guess there's something else going on. The majority of people might simply not care about all those war 'stats', they're happy it's over and they've not been harmed. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have in mind that election participation is pretty low in the US - if you don't care about the people governing your country, will you really care about their actions? I doubt it.

Stormscythe wrote:

WoSL ChemWarrior wrote:

the numbers for that battle alone were over 6,000 killed and 20,000 wounded. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined there were approximatly 214,000 killed.  So basically 9 battles like Iwo Jima. Remind me, is there more than 9 islands in the Pacific Rim? Just curious if you know geography better than you think Americans know history.

I think, there's a difference between being wounded and being killed. Among the 214k killed people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are only those, who died instantly or in the days afterwards. But what can we say about the children of those victims?
Well, of course, doing cold maths you're right - no one doubts that. Still, the aftertaste is more than bitter, if you ask me.

And at the guy saying that a lot of Americans seem to believe (...), well - I guess there's something else going on. The majority of people might simply not care about all those war 'stats', they're happy it's over and they've not been harmed. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have in mind that election participation is pretty low in the US - if you don't care about the people governing your country, will you really care about their actions? I doubt it.

I agree that American's are responsible for what we get. Our voter turn out usually sits around 60% and thats only for Presidential elections.

God Save the Queen wrote:

WoSL ChemWarrior wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

America killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, thats what they are responsible for.

I know I shouldn't bother, but, here goes. "That's all?" So you mean to tell me that you think the Brits could have pulled off D-Day without American help in teh same timeframe that we did? Plus, I hear lots of people saying that we Americans kill "hundreds of thousands" of civilians and non-combatants. Did I miss something, or did Hitler kill in the millions? I realize that may be slightly off topic, but that is what we helped stop. I don't resort to vulgarity ofter, but "Does it really fucking matter?"

Look, I am not one of those "If it weren't for us you would be speaking German" morons, but the war would have lasted much longer as a stalemate at the English Channel, and that would have resulted in the deaths of many more civilians in both Europe and the Pacific.

Yes, we dropped 2 nukes. Yeah, it was a really bad idea, unless you consider the fact that it prevented an island-hopping war in the Pacific. Using Iwo Jima as a base (a shitty base I know, but the one with the best numbers available), the numbers for that battle alone were over 6,000 killed and 20,000 wounded. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined there were approximatly 214,000 killed.  So basically 9 battles like Iwo Jima. Remind me, is there more than 9 islands in the Pacific Rim? Just curious if you know geography better than you think Americans know history.

Think before you speak next time

how many japanese babies being held by their mothers arms were incinerated by the atomic bombs?

And how many fathers were able to return to their kids because the war ended? This could go on all day

LostFate wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

LostFate wrote:

best army in the world? from what i hear the American army is just a bunch of poorly trained cowboys an the only reason there decent is the fact that there bigger than most in numbers as for the technology? care to share which is better than anyone else's?

Looks like the kids are home from school for their winter break...

Wow. You think the U.S. army is poorly trained? Are you kidding me? And you're actually suggesting that we do not have superior technology, but rely on numbers instead?

The U.S army is one of, if not the best trained military in the world.

As for technology, the list just goes on and on and on...

F-22s, Stealth fighters/bombers, space program, Aegis combat system, mirvs, cruise missiles, ohio class submarines, Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes, Supercarriers, etc etc etc etc.

To argue that the United States does not have the best technology and say that "the American army is just a bunch of poorly trained cowboys" is a quick way to make yourself look foolish. Seriously, where do you get your information? It is the training and the technology that makes the United States military number one...the numbers only complement it.

i get it because I'm a British solider in the royal guards division and i recently did my first tour of Iraq an we were stationed with some American troops an if you seriously think there one of the best trained army in the world you need to think again, they were undisciplined an not aware of the situation at all.

After 9 years in with 2 of those served with a Ranger Bn, I can tell you that most of what you must have been around was probably Reserve and National Guard. That is most of what is over there now. That and the Brits who stay in the rear with the gear...