Determination, they took on more then they could handle, they were so badly out number it was down right silly. There country was being bombed into oblivion, no matter how bad things were, no matter how impossible it was, they still held firm, they still gave it their all, and no matter how huge our advantages were, we still had the shit chewed out us by them. Even in 1944 when we allies thought we had won this war for sure, the Germans still managed to put forth a huge counter strike and put the whole notion of victory in question again. They showed a determination that very few countries and their peoples have ever shown in history. You can be thankful they are an ally today, because if there was ever a war against say China, the Germans will fight and they will bring that same determination they had then, with the right leadership they will be unbeatable. Winning was impossible, but they wouldnt accept that and they wouldnt quite thats the point. Bring it on down now.
No they showed determination about average when cornered.
They fought to the death because death was coming. It was coming to burn and kill and rape their women.
If there was ever a war against China, Germany would not be in it. It has no military capability in that region. They are beatable, they will always be beatable, and they would do well to remember it.
We are all beatable. Even superpowers with superweapons and supertroopers.
Anytime Germany begins to look in anyway unbeatbale ever again, I think there is a very large possibility that we will attack.
I see your point and I respect your view, nice post. Bring it on down now.
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
Just like Germany attacked the US when it looked unbeatable?
Germany hasn't attacked the U.S. since it looked unbeatable. No one has.
It is however, still beatable. We all are.
It is imperative that we treat our enemies well. Better than the Germans did if possible, or one day Germany's fate will be our own. (If it's not too late for that already).
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by MadAce
Just like Germany attacked the US when it looked unbeatable?
Germany hasn't attacked the U.S. since it looked unbeatable. No one has.
It is however, still beatable. We all are.
It is imperative that we treat our enemies well. Better than the Germans did if possible, or one day Germany's fate will be our own. (If it's not too late for that already).
Comparing Germany's fate to America's isn't really fair. In WW2, geography played a huge role in someone's vulnerability, whereas today it is a sideline issue. America is cushioned by two oceans, which would have made them almost unbeatable by default in WW2. That's why England has never had a successful invasion on their own soil, but why it is very possible today. Technology changes, so should your comparisons.
Originally posted by baff At the start of the war, (or even at the end of the previous one) Germany was technolgically uninvadeable. We tried. What cushions America today won't necessarily cushion it tomorrow and didn't in 2001.
That was kinda the point I was trying to make. If Germany was an island, they probably would have won WW2. Today, geography is a secondary issue.
Originally posted by MadAce I wasn't sarcastic. There has been a world war raging for almost 2 decades now... Simply with economics.
While I see where you are coming from, economic rivalry is not war. (Although it is often a motivation for one). America's economic rivals would do well to remember that.
Originally posted by baff At the start of the war, (or even at the end of the previous one) Germany was technolgically uninvadeable. We tried. What cushions America today won't necessarily cushion it tomorrow and didn't in 2001.
That was kinda the point I was trying to make. If Germany was an island, they probably would have won WW2. Today, geography is a secondary issue.
I think we're on the same page.
Playing the "what if" game, if Germany had been an island it would never had made it into another country allied with Britain. Germany's military expertise has always been land based. Geography maketh the nation.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by MadAce I wasn't sarcastic. There has been a world war raging for almost 2 decades now... Simply with economics.
While I see where you are coming from, economic rivalry is not war. (Although it is often a motivation for one). America's economic rivals would do well to remember that.
You're right. It's not war...
Or is it? Let us think. People die on both sides. Massive economic damage on both sides. But still the "war" spurs new technological advances every day. Other countries are forced to take sides. Alliances are made and broken.
So what exactly does economic rivalry be different from "real" war?
Originally posted by MadAce I wasn't sarcastic. There has been a world war raging for almost 2 decades now... Simply with economics.
While I see where you are coming from, economic rivalry is not war. (Although it is often a motivation for one). America's economic rivals would do well to remember that.
You're right. It's not war...
Or is it? Let us think. People die on both sides. Massive economic damage on both sides. But still the "war" spurs new technological advances every day. Other countries are forced to take sides. Alliances are made and broken.
So what exactly does economic rivalry be different from "real" war?
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by MadAce Originally posted by baff Originally posted by MadAce I wasn't sarcastic. There has been a world war raging for almost 2 decades now... Simply with economics.
While I see where you are coming from, economic rivalry is not war. (Although it is often a motivation for one). America's economic rivals would do well to remember that.
You're right. It's not war...
Or is it? Let us think. People die on both sides. Massive economic damage on both sides. But still the "war" spurs new technological advances every day. Other countries are forced to take sides. Alliances are made and broken.
So what exactly does economic rivalry be different from "real" war? The people dying part.
Increasing stakes and very powerfull and very unscrupulous copanies (and governments) take massive risks to get the upperhand eceonomy wise. It's already been proven that every economic setback has its price in human lives. And an even greater price in "nullified" lives which cost more than they bring in. This is costing dozens of lives a day.
Also this power struggle propagates troughout the third world and regimes literally fight over the right to mine certain areas for the battling companies.
So I think it's asking more lives than the Falkland war did. Or the Korean war.
Increasing stakes and very powerfull and very unscrupulous copanies (and governments) take massive risks to get the upperhand eceonomy wise. It's already been proven that every economic setback has its price in human lives. And an even greater price in "nullified" lives which cost more than they bring in. This is costing dozens of lives a day.
Also this power struggle propagates troughout the third world and regimes literally fight over the right to mine certain areas for the battling companies.
So I think it's asking more lives than the Falkland war did. Or the Korean war. That is a bit of a stretch, and a "this caused that which in turn led to so and so." War has people dropping bombs and shooting each other. Economic War might ultimately lead to a person's death (i.e. They get fired from a company that is suffering due to the economic policies, they can't find a new job, they starve). But this is much more of a stretch then: I shoot you.
Same goes with mining rights. Yes, technically some skirmishing over a diamond mine might be a "result" of the economic war, but it's a stretch.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by MadAce
Increasing stakes and very powerfull and very unscrupulous copanies (and governments) take massive risks to get the upperhand eceonomy wise. It's already been proven that every economic setback has its price in human lives. And an even greater price in "nullified" lives which cost more than they bring in. This is costing dozens of lives a day.
Also this power struggle propagates troughout the third world and regimes literally fight over the right to mine certain areas for the battling companies.
So I think it's asking more lives than the Falkland war did. Or the Korean war. That is a bit of a stretch, and a "this caused that which in turn led to so and so." War has people dropping bombs and shooting each other. Economic War might ultimately lead to a person's death (i.e. They get fired from a company that is suffering due to the economic policies, they can't find a new job, they starve). But this is much more of a stretch then: I shoot you.
Same goes with mining rights. Yes, technically some skirmishing over a diamond mine might be a "result" of the economic war, but it's a stretch.
It's not a stretch, it's a fact. It's a direct consequence.
Alot of countries hate the US. Every country hates some other country. Way of the world. Each country is like an individual person. I dare anyone to find a single person in this world that doesnt hate or dislike someone else.
I dont care that the french hate us in general. The only thing that chaps my hide is we have been chastized by them for invading Iraq. Yet their name is always on the list when its time to get something from it. That is akin to Person A mugging Person B while Person C stands at the side yelling to Person A not to do it then at the end saying "Let me have Person B's watch."
Originally posted by PlanoMM Originally posted by LostGrace Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by LostGrace
As is stated, there would be no USA if France did not help.
Okay, but by this logic, there would be -2 Frances if it wasn't for the USA, so we win For all we know WW1 and WW2 would not even have happened if there was not a america. You have no right to jusge what could have happened. news flash, america was neutral until pearl harbor, quite a way after WWII started. we just ended it. The USA had a huge impact on world wide politics when it was founded. For all you know there would not be a Germany right now and we would still be calling it Prussia instead. Germany was founded on democratic ideals, which strick the world the strongest when the USA became a country. So if there was no USA then there would be very little, prolly no Democracys today. Mabey France because they were fed up with their king the time of the American Revelution, but that would most likely make GFrance what America is today, and we would still be colonies.
Who knows, like I said, we cannot predict what would have happened.
Originally posted by kaibigan34 Alot of countries hate the US. Every country hates some other country. Way of the world. Each country is like an individual person. I dare anyone to find a single person in this world that doesnt hate or dislike someone else.
I dont care that the french hate us in general. The only thing that chaps my hide is we have been chastized by them for invading Iraq. Yet their name is always on the list when its time to get something from it. That is akin to Person A mugging Person B while Person C stands at the side yelling to Person A not to do it then at the end saying "Let me have Person B's watch."
Kai
A country is far from being a unified entity. Usually you'll find that it's opinions is quite the same as its inhabitants.
Trust me. The majority of mankind cares less (either way) about the US than about what they're gonna eat today. And for many people that's pretty important.
Increasing stakes and very powerfull and very unscrupulous copanies (and governments) take massive risks to get the upperhand eceonomy wise. It's already been proven that every economic setback has its price in human lives. And an even greater price in "nullified" lives which cost more than they bring in. This is costing dozens of lives a day.
Also this power struggle propagates troughout the third world and regimes literally fight over the right to mine certain areas for the battling companies.
So I think it's asking more lives than the Falkland war did. Or the Korean war.
2 million died in the Korean War over a 3 year period. I don't think it compares to any economic feud over mining rights I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by MadAce
Increasing stakes and very powerfull and very unscrupulous copanies (and governments) take massive risks to get the upperhand eceonomy wise. It's already been proven that every economic setback has its price in human lives. And an even greater price in "nullified" lives which cost more than they bring in. This is costing dozens of lives a day.
Also this power struggle propagates troughout the third world and regimes literally fight over the right to mine certain areas for the battling companies.
So I think it's asking more lives than the Falkland war did. Or the Korean war.
2 million died in the Korean War over a 3 year period. I don't think it compares to any economic feud over mining rights I've ever heard of.
The recent wars in Eastern Congo outnumber that by a million I think.
The USA had a huge impact on world wide politics when it was founded. For all you know there would not be a Germany right now and we would still be calling it Prussia instead. Germany was founded on democratic ideals, which strick the world the strongest when the USA became a country. So if there was no USA then there would be very little, prolly no Democracys today. Mabey France because they were fed up with their king the time of the American Revelution, but that would most likely make GFrance what America is today, and we would still be colonies.
Who knows, like I said, we cannot predict what would have happened.
Increasing stakes and very powerfull and very unscrupulous copanies (and governments) take massive risks to get the upperhand eceonomy wise. It's already been proven that every economic setback has its price in human lives. And an even greater price in "nullified" lives which cost more than they bring in. This is costing dozens of lives a day.
Also this power struggle propagates troughout the third world and regimes literally fight over the right to mine certain areas for the battling companies.
So I think it's asking more lives than the Falkland war did. Or the Korean war.
2 million died in the Korean War over a 3 year period. I don't think it compares to any economic feud over mining rights I've ever heard of.
The recent wars in Eastern Congo outnumber that by a million I think.
Where the key word in that sentence is "wars" not economic competition. Wars are the bit where loads of people die.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by MadAce Originally posted by baff Originally posted by MadAce
Increasing stakes and very powerfull and very unscrupulous copanies (and governments) take massive risks to get the upperhand eceonomy wise. It's already been proven that every economic setback has its price in human lives. And an even greater price in "nullified" lives which cost more than they bring in. This is costing dozens of lives a day.
Also this power struggle propagates troughout the third world and regimes literally fight over the right to mine certain areas for the battling companies.
So I think it's asking more lives than the Falkland war did. Or the Korean war.
2 million died in the Korean War over a 3 year period. I don't think it compares to any economic feud over mining rights I've ever heard of.
The recent wars in Eastern Congo outnumber that by a million I think. Where the key word in that sentence is "war" not economic rivalry.
The wars were a direct result of economic strife. Yes, war has gotten a tool of economics and not the other way around.
Originally posted by kaibigan34 Alot of countries hate the US. Every country hates some other country. Way of the world. Each country is like an individual person. I dare anyone to find a single person in this world that doesnt hate or dislike someone else.
I dont care that the french hate us in general. The only thing that chaps my hide is we have been chastized by them for invading Iraq. Yet their name is always on the list when its time to get something from it. That is akin to Person A mugging Person B while Person C stands at the side yelling to Person A not to do it then at the end saying "Let me have Person B's watch."
Comments
Determination, they took on more then they could handle, they were so badly out number it was down right silly. There country was being bombed into oblivion, no matter how bad things were, no matter how impossible it was, they still held firm, they still gave it their all, and no matter how huge our advantages were, we still had the shit chewed out us by them. Even in 1944 when we allies thought we had won this war for sure, the Germans still managed to put forth a huge counter strike and put the whole notion of victory in question again. They showed a determination that very few countries and their peoples have ever shown in history. You can be thankful they are an ally today, because if there was ever a war against say China, the Germans will fight and they will bring that same determination they had then, with the right leadership they will be unbeatable. Winning was impossible, but they wouldnt accept that and they wouldnt quite thats the point. Bring it on down now.
No they showed determination about average when cornered.
They fought to the death because death was coming. It was coming to burn and kill and rape their women.
If there was ever a war against China, Germany would not be in it. It has no military capability in that region. They are beatable, they will always be beatable, and they would do well to remember it.
We are all beatable. Even superpowers with superweapons and supertroopers.
Anytime Germany begins to look in anyway unbeatbale ever again, I think there is a very large possibility that we will attack.
I see your point and I respect your view, nice post. Bring it on down now.
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
Germany hasn't attacked the U.S. since it looked unbeatable. No one has.
It is however, still beatable. We all are.
It is imperative that we treat our enemies well. Better than the Germans did if possible, or one day Germany's fate will be our own. (If it's not too late for that already).
Germany hasn't attacked the U.S. since it looked unbeatable. No one has.
It is however, still beatable. We all are.
It is imperative that we treat our enemies well. Better than the Germans did if possible, or one day Germany's fate will be our own. (If it's not too late for that already).
Comparing Germany's fate to America's isn't really fair. In WW2, geography played a huge role in someone's vulnerability, whereas today it is a sideline issue. America is cushioned by two oceans, which would have made them almost unbeatable by default in WW2. That's why England has never had a successful invasion on their own soil, but why it is very possible today. Technology changes, so should your comparisons.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
I wasn't sarcastic. There has been a world war raging for almost 2 decades now... Simply with economics.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
At the start of the war, (or even at the end of the previous one) Germany was technolgically uninvadeable. We tried.
What cushions America today won't necessarily cushion it tomorrow and didn't in 2001.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
I think we're on the same page.
Playing the "what if" game, if Germany had been an island it would never had made it into another country allied with Britain. Germany's military expertise has always been land based. Geography maketh the nation.
You're right. It's not war...
Or is it?
Let us think. People die on both sides. Massive economic damage on both sides.
But still the "war" spurs new technological advances every day.
Other countries are forced to take sides.
Alliances are made and broken.
So what exactly does economic rivalry be different from "real" war?
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
You're right. It's not war...
Or is it?
Let us think. People die on both sides. Massive economic damage on both sides.
But still the "war" spurs new technological advances every day.
Other countries are forced to take sides.
Alliances are made and broken.
So what exactly does economic rivalry be different from "real" war?
The people dying part.
You're right. It's not war...
Or is it?
Let us think. People die on both sides. Massive economic damage on both sides.
But still the "war" spurs new technological advances every day.
Other countries are forced to take sides.
Alliances are made and broken.
So what exactly does economic rivalry be different from "real" war?
The people dying part.
Increasing stakes and very powerfull and very unscrupulous copanies (and governments) take massive risks to get the upperhand eceonomy wise. It's already been proven that every economic setback has its price in human lives. And an even greater price in "nullified" lives which cost more than they bring in. This is costing dozens of lives a day.
Also this power struggle propagates troughout the third world and
regimes literally fight over the right to mine certain areas for the battling companies.
So I think it's asking more lives than the Falkland war did. Or the Korean war.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Increasing stakes and very powerfull and very unscrupulous copanies (and governments) take massive risks to get the upperhand eceonomy wise. It's already been proven that every economic setback has its price in human lives. And an even greater price in "nullified" lives which cost more than they bring in. This is costing dozens of lives a day.
Also this power struggle propagates troughout the third world and
regimes literally fight over the right to mine certain areas for the battling companies.
So I think it's asking more lives than the Falkland war did. Or the Korean war.
That is a bit of a stretch, and a "this caused that which in turn led to so and so." War has people dropping bombs and shooting each other. Economic War might ultimately lead to a person's death (i.e. They get fired from a company that is suffering due to the economic policies, they can't find a new job, they starve). But this is much more of a stretch then: I shoot you.
Same goes with mining rights. Yes, technically some skirmishing over a diamond mine might be a "result" of the economic war, but it's a stretch.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Increasing stakes and very powerfull and very unscrupulous copanies (and governments) take massive risks to get the upperhand eceonomy wise. It's already been proven that every economic setback has its price in human lives. And an even greater price in "nullified" lives which cost more than they bring in. This is costing dozens of lives a day.
Also this power struggle propagates troughout the third world and
regimes literally fight over the right to mine certain areas for the battling companies.
So I think it's asking more lives than the Falkland war did. Or the Korean war.
That is a bit of a stretch, and a "this caused that which in turn led to so and so." War has people dropping bombs and shooting each other. Economic War might ultimately lead to a person's death (i.e. They get fired from a company that is suffering due to the economic policies, they can't find a new job, they starve). But this is much more of a stretch then: I shoot you.
Same goes with mining rights. Yes, technically some skirmishing over a diamond mine might be a "result" of the economic war, but it's a stretch.
It's not a stretch, it's a fact. It's a direct consequence.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I dont care that the french hate us in general. The only thing that chaps my hide is we have been chastized by them for invading Iraq. Yet their name is always on the list when its time to get something from it. That is akin to Person A mugging Person B while Person C stands at the side yelling to Person A not to do it then at the end saying "Let me have Person B's watch."
Kai
Okay, but by this logic, there would be -2 Frances if it wasn't for the USA, so we win
For all we know WW1 and WW2 would not even have happened if there was not a america. You have no right to jusge what could have happened.
news flash, america was neutral until pearl harbor, quite a way after WWII started. we just ended it.
The USA had a huge impact on world wide politics when it was founded. For all you know there would not be a Germany right now and we would still be calling it Prussia instead. Germany was founded on democratic ideals, which strick the world the strongest when the USA became a country. So if there was no USA then there would be very little, prolly no Democracys today. Mabey France because they were fed up with their king the time of the American Revelution, but that would most likely make GFrance what America is today, and we would still be colonies.
Who knows, like I said, we cannot predict what would have happened.
A country is far from being a unified entity. Usually you'll find that it's opinions is quite the same as its inhabitants.
Trust me. The majority of mankind cares less (either way) about the US than about what they're gonna eat today. And for many people that's pretty important.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
2 million died in the Korean War over a 3 year period. I don't think it compares to any economic feud over mining rights I've ever heard of.
2 million died in the Korean War over a 3 year period. I don't think it compares to any economic feud over mining rights I've ever heard of.
The recent wars in Eastern Congo outnumber that by a million I think.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Who knows, like I said, we cannot predict what would have happened.
Lol.
2 million died in the Korean War over a 3 year period. I don't think it compares to any economic feud over mining rights I've ever heard of.
The recent wars in Eastern Congo outnumber that by a million I think.
Where the key word in that sentence is "wars" not economic competition. Wars are the bit where loads of people die.
2 million died in the Korean War over a 3 year period. I don't think it compares to any economic feud over mining rights I've ever heard of.
The recent wars in Eastern Congo outnumber that by a million I think.
Where the key word in that sentence is "war" not economic rivalry.
The wars were a direct result of economic strife. Yes, war has gotten a tool of economics and not the other way around.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Negative.
Economics is about getting rich. Wars are about violent conflict.
Many wars are fought for the purpose of getting rich, although not all.
Getting rich is not often done for the purpose of war. More money is traditionally made during peace time.
The goal of achieving wealth is not conquest.
But invading Iraq took something from them.
Did you expect them to thank you?