Bin Laden

[(Rogue).ltc.dan]

lol wow well guess we know what he did on his free time, Watchin tv...if he wasn't watching all that tv he wouldn't be dead .

[grrrrrrrrrr]

lol wow well guess we know what he did on his free time, Watchin tv...if he wasn't watching all that tv he wouldn't be dead .

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

Yes grrrrrrr they are 2 diffrent places indeed.
Now to show my point in education.

If you ask any American about the wars the USA "Participated" in, they will say it was for the common good for the people.
They will say of course that the Americans were the saviors in WW1 and WW2.
Now from one point of their education this may be right, the USA did come in between both wars.

Now the things they teach you in Europe, and not only where i live, but up till now ever person i know will say more or less what me and Rawler are saying.
-in WW1 America was selling provision to the allies against Hitler Gaining profit from the war, it was only in 1917 after the Russian revolution they joined.
so they barley participated in the war.

-In WW2 America was neutral for half the war till Japan bombared pearl harbor, and stadistics show that they lost about 300.000 men, while Russia only lost about 13.000.000-14.000.000 milllions, and after the war they did recieve payment for their losses as it should have been.

I don't care about the respons against this, all i'm doing is saying what is educated in the history class in europe.

;T

[[m'kay]]

Yes grrrrrrr they are 2 diffrent places indeed.
Now to show my point in education.

If you ask any American about the wars the USA "Participated" in, they will say it was for the common good for the people. NOPE.
They will say of course that the Americans were the saviors in WW1 and WW2. Again, NOPE.
Now from one point of their education this may be right, the USA did come in between both wars.

Now the things they teach you in Europe, and not only where i live, but up till now ever person i know will say more or less what me and Rawler are saying.
-in WW1 America was selling provision to the allies against Hitler Gaining profit from the war, it was only in 1917 after the Russian revolution they joined.
so they barley participated in the war. Sorry we didn't give you all your weapons for free. Next time we'll just give them away and let our economy tumble to ruin.


-In WW2 America was neutral for half the war till Japan bombared pearl harbor, and stadistics show that they lost about 300.000 men, while Russia only lost about 13.000.000-14.000.000 milllions, and after the war they did recieve payment for their losses as it should have been. I fail to see the point of this, really. Maybe it's because i'm up at 2:30. I'm pretty sure you tried to make a joke with that "only" bit, but if so it was kind of a [poo] one.


;T

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

i'm sorry narg, but i was interupted while writing and it seems i sent the reply too early.

What my point was is that Americans due to education think diffrently then europeans like Rawler and myself.
Iv'e even say Americans say the things about WW2 on these forums.

If you ask any european why the USA invaded for example Iraq they will say for the oil.
I'm just stating the european thoughts not my own, as i don't care for endless and pointless discussions.

[burzerker]

It's not terribly surprising that iw hat is taught in Europe. The US did sell arms before entering the war, but this doesn't exactly make it profiting from the war as they were not in it at the time, it was just in their best interest that the allies won. After they entered the war I'm sure that they spent way more money than was even made from the arms sales. WWII, yes the US didn't lose as many people as they stayed out of it for the most part again until Pearl Harbour, but to compare that to the Russian losses??? please!! The Russians had no care for what heppened to their people, most of their losses came from forced marches of civillians to clear mines and from starvation from their burning the crops to the ground to keep the Nazis from getting it. The US has never occupied a country to strip it of resources or money period. It's the Europeans that wanted Iraqs oil, the French were tring to make deals with Saddam which is why the pansy asses wouldn't fight, like usual. And once again, the Europeans are trying to protect their access to oil by now fighting against Lybia, I guess they expect this to be an easier fight for them. Also funny how this is considered an acceptable coalition when there are fewer countries fighting in it than fought against Saddam, but that's a whole other discussion to start.

[Corpse]

I could discuss the US in a derogatory manner too, but I'm too considerate to do something like that.

[mrjamwin]

i'm sorry narg, but i was interupted while writing and it seems i sent the reply too early.

What my point was is that Americans due to education think diffrently then europeans like Rawler and myself.
Iv'e even say Americans say the things about WW2 on these forums.

If you ask any european why the USA invaded for example Iraq they will say for the oil.
I'm just stating the european thoughts not my own, as i don't care for endless and pointless discussions.

Here's what American's say about you Europeans who are attacking Libya- Sweet Crude Oil. Nothing else.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

Just saying.

But the case of lybia, yes the european are interested in the oil, why? Cos 10% of their oil is bought there, since the war started the price of the oil has been increasing tremendously.
Now, the dictator in lybia stated that if europe would intervene there whould be no more oil, so if they truely wanted it, they whouldn't start attacking his planes.

Another thing, why are they attacking his planes? Because of the air restriction on Lybia.
Why is there an air restriction? Because he is killing too many civilians that aren't taking up arms.

Also, i know about that many civil russians were killed by their own leader.
But the most losses of the soldiers were in Stalingrado's defence.
The germans were more prepared for war, better equiped, better arms, better vehicles...they should have bought some damn clothes!


PS. i made all this just to say that Rawler isn't stupid, he responded due to his education mixed with what we hear from the media just like the rest of the europeans, and just like the American's

Personally we know, what they want us to know, the media everything is controlled, why do you think they imprisoned the leader of Wiki-leaks not too long ago?
they don't control that Yet
Well before going off topic

MT

[grrrrrrrrrr]

If you ask any American about the wars the USA "Participated" in, they will say it was for the common good for the people.
They will say of course that the Americans were the saviors in WW1 and WW2.
Now from one point of their education this may be right, the USA did come in between both wars.

Now the things they teach you in Europe, and not only where i live, but up till now ever person i know will say more or less what me and Rawler are saying.
-in WW1 America was selling provision to the allies against Hitler Gaining profit from the war, it was only in 1917 after the Russian revolution they joined.
so they barley participated in the war.

-In WW2 America was neutral for half the war till Japan bombared pearl harbor, and stadistics show that they lost about 300.000 men, while Russia only lost about 13.000.000-14.000.000 milllions, and after the war they did recieve payment for their losses as it should have been.

I don't care about the respons against this, all i'm doing is saying what is educated in the history class in europe.

;T

Firstly, America didn't ask for itself to be bombed/attacked. And your "history" really needs to be learned correctly. Hitler didn't gain control of Germany until World War II. You have it that WW I is when Hitler became prominent. Get it right. Apparently European "education" is a bit effed up, if that's what you took away from studying WW I.

To your second point, yes, America barely participated in WW I because we, as Americans, really didn't want to get entangled in the affairs of other countries. Which goes back to my first point: America doesn't want these wars; America is forced into them because other [European] countries are too helpless and weak to defend themselves. Many countries in Europe weren't even close to the power that America held in the pre-WW I era (even though America wasn't a superpower yet), and so it's only natural that they should try and enlist our help.

Your second point, about WW II, makes no [m'kay] sense. What are you trying to prove?

What my point was is that Americans due to education think diffrently then europeans like Rawler and myself.

Bravo, you can finally condense your "thoughts" into relatively clear and short sentences. (Well, it's pretty short anyways....) No one's disputing that "point"; and so all you're really doing is showing your ignorance of history and how misguided you are.