You all tell (and are told) a lot of Bullshit

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by heartc, Mar 2, 2007.

  1. milo--

    milo-- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    376
    BIG <S> ! Matthew roxxx!!!!
     
  2. --stec

    --stec Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2000
    Messages:
    1,944
    Location:
    Poznan, Poland
    As an EU member you're free to join Polish army and go to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Lebanon or any place you wish.

    BTW I know at least 3 guys who served in US military in past 10 years having only Polish citisenship. One of them even finished studies payed by US Navy :)
     
  3. FranzAugust

    FranzAugust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,444
    Location:
    Germany

    deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2007
  4. Tzebra

    Tzebra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    510
    Funny you saying that. Brings back memories.
    Had a Polish guy serving with the US in the Balkans. The Swiss and Germans had a few Americans serving with them.

    I still keep in contact with my multinational friends I made over there. Soldiers are soldiers, regardless of flag. :alc:
     
  5. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    Requirements for each service vary, but certain qualifications for enlistment are common to all branches. In order to enlist, one must be between 17 and 35 years old for active service, be a U.S. citizen or an alien holding permanent resident status, not have a felony record, and possess a birth certificate. Applicants who are aged 17 must have the consent of a parent or legal guardian before entering the service. Coast Guard enlisted personnel must enter active duty before their 28th birthday, whereas Marine Corps enlisted personnel must not be over the age of 29. Applicants must both pass a written examination?the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery?and meet certain minimum physical standards, such as height, weight, vision, and overall health. All branches of the Armed Forces require high school graduation or its equivalent. In 2004, more than 9 out of 10 recruits were high school graduates.
    Source

    And lookey here

    Looks pretty solid. Too lazy to read it all true. We know you've had an admiration for the US, I hope it all lives up to that.

    Have fun, I mean it.

    [edit]This looks pretty plausible as well.

    <Z>
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2007
  6. heartc

    heartc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    Messages:
    806
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes. They will endure it in the end, because ignorance tends to hit back, just as you say. I could feel like "haha, I told you so!" about it, but it grants you a different feeling when one of those you would have to tell so in the future is your own country. Then it will not be satisfaction really, but rather sadness.

    This is one of the very basic points concerning the confusion with the idea of freedom. Since freedom sounds good, people tend to think they should gain it also just by "good" means, or it should just fall down from heaven. They are trying to call the US "liars" in terms of freedom because if they did not, they would have to acknowledge that freedom doesn't just fall down from the heavens like that, and that maybe you would even have to fight for it, like the US did. In other words, that you would have to bring about freedom (a good thing) by violence (a bad thing), or that you might have to stand up for it and even lose a lot of important things in the process - like your life, for example.

    This is also one of the reasons why Europeans tend to say "The US do not have any kind of history like we do."
    Of course, for anyone with a neutral mind this argument is utter bullshit. Because the US, during their founding time, were nothing else but (mostly) EUROPEANS, they shared the same history up until the point when they sailed the nasty waters of the Atlantic Ocean to get rid of Dark Europe, where they were partly persecuted for things like religious beliefs, and then, after a while, felt just kinda like "FUCK OFF!" towards their far away European monarchies and governing houses when those demanded them to be taxed craploads w/o providing any assistance and even bad-mouthing them as traitors back home.

    Under this perspective, it's no surprise that even modern Europe likes to portray itself as "culturally superior" in contrast to the "Wild West" outlaws in the US. Because while there might be officially peace now amongst us (basicly just because the US "outlaws" resurrected Europe after WWII and saved / guarded EU's asses and culture during the Cold War), there is still the same resentment as there was some 400 years ago, which goes like: "You not only fleed us, stopped paying our taxes, and fought against us, but YOU DID ALSO SUCCEED IN ALL THAT AND PROSPERED."

    Can there be any bigger humaliation for Europe than that truth? And this is what all the EU based Anti-Americanism goes back to. And it adds nicely to the European Anti-Semitic resentments as well, which goes back even further than the Anti-American one. It's an old story. And it's not about "Bush W.". It's far older, and any honest person who lived longer than 5 years, before any "Iraqi Freedom" discussions came up, knows it.

    People tend to buy into other seemingly powerfull people, also called elite, politicians or government, who tell them that everything will be fine, and equal, and rightous, just by having them (the people) pay their taxes and play by the rules, don't ask questions, don't ask who is accountable for which law, for which decision, i.e. shut the fuck up. Then everything will be fine, and as long as your are a "good citizen" and no "enemy of the state", there will be no troubles for you. Just do what we tell you and shut the fuck up. This is what the EU is - and will be - all about. I do see that coming. It always starts slowly, carefully, with no one minding, and there will be one law, then there will be the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and then one morning you'll wake up and wonder where the fuck you are, and how that could have happened. "The evil will come like a thief in the middle of the night." A wisdom also written in the Bible, you atheists, those of you who are reading that and think it's all BS what's written there.

    They say "history is repeating itself". Some say "well, we've left our past behind us, mankind has *evolved* since then". I say: "Open your fucking eyes...Are you still SURE?"



    Thank you. A very real concept. In fact, it is not a political concept, but a natural, a physical one. And I do mean this seriously, matter of factly, not philosophically. My limited English might not be sufficient to explain, but if you want to gain something, meaning increase upon energy A, you need to add energy B to gain energy / outcome C. Nothing just falls down from heaven. You need to sacrify one thing in order to gain another. Sacrify fuel A to gain power B. Sacrify money to gain more free time. Sacrify free time to gain more money.
    This is not politics, but natural law. And then it should come as no surprise that most successfull and honest are those politics which undestand those laws instead of prominising shit to the people, and which are also still built upon the undestanding that while those laws do apply to the actions of man, man still has to bear a responsible towards each other.

    All this may sound like complicated shit. But in fact it's just like that: Some people do have this concept in their back-minds w/o knowing, and some people lack it. The first ones being usually situated in the US, while the latter ones being usually situated in Europe. Because most of those who did have this concept in Europe, too, left the place back in 1700-1800 or so. All that was left - lacks it. The best, the free minds, were gone. And then came the World Wars. Which again let some of those few bright minds which were still left either gassed / shot / killed or dissappear (to the US/Canada/Australia).

    And those who prefered being lied to by self-proclaimed superior beings (i.e. kings, monarchs, führer, politicians) in exchange of not having to worry much about "all this stuff", stayed here. Never mind this didn't turn out true for them after all. But did they notice? No. Cause in the end, what sounds good, must be good. NEVER MIND USING MY OWN BRAIN TO QUESTION WHAT MR. BUREAUCRAT SAYS. AN NEVER MIND ASKING "WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT LAW?" No, cause we all want just PEACE right? Peace by all means. And asking questions would spoil the PEACE, no? So don't ask. Be a good sheep.

    This is why Europe is fucked.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2007
  7. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    Heartc, could you replace Europe for Germany in your above post? Because I honestly don't feel like what you're saying is representative for for example Belgium.

    Politicians will always be slippery figures that try to work both sides. They'll say whatever they feel suits the situation best only to further their political agenda. That won't change by going from one country to another. That said, politicians are democratically elected. Which for a part should mean that they have the backing of the majority of the people (can't avoid some ppl not agreeing). But for another part actually also means they can only enforce so much. They can make laws, and lie to people, but they can't make up people's minds. The EU and the US of A are no different in the way they treat freedom, it's just the way they propagate this that differs.

    Freedom is also very relative. But if you feel trapped, you should do something about it. A rant will only go so far.

    There have been many philosophists, a lot of them German actually, who have to a varying degree thought about freedom. How the mind ties in to that, and how you obtain and maintain it. It's not because the USA is frequently involved in wars to try and maintain peace that others aren't/aren't concerned. You seem to hold the idea that the USA has the sole rulership over what is freedom, and what is democracy. They don't.

    The USA intrigues me a lot as well. But I don't feel like a lot will change in the way of politics. Politicians will still be politicians, and policy will still be made by them. The man in the seat will still be a man of the people and politicians will still lie to their people. That doesn't change when you cross borders. And from what I gather, your biggest buff is with the politicians. You seem very insatisfied with the political direction your country has taken, and I can only respect that as a firm believer in democracy. That said however, you will indeed step into another political climate by crossing the pond, but politicians will still be the slippery liars they are here.

    Don't for one second think that freedom of speech will remove the bullshit from the world. Lies will always be there, no matter where you go. Freedom of speech stretches here as well. And, changing one biased source for anther, ain't really much in the way of an improvement at all is it?

    At least, that's how I see it.

    <Z>
     
  8. --q---

    --q--- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    332
    Location:
    Pruszcz Gdanski - Poland
    Europe is fucked up, as well as America is fucked up. All these are declining cultures. Empires rise up and fall down. Asians will soon rule the world. On average they are smarter then westerners, healthier, multiply faster and they work more. Superior cultures in any aspect. With some luck they will be able to control space. Japanese or Chinese will be the dominant language in the galaxy imo.
     
  9. -cbfs-

    -cbfs- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,940
    Location:
    Where the flowers bloom like madness in the spri-i
    好きです
     
  10. Fucketeer

    Fucketeer Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,280
    --q--- is in the know.
     
  11. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,921
    Location:
    Germany
    How exactly did you reach this conclusion? If America and Europe are fucked up, then China, India and possibly Japan are doubly so. All these countries have the same problems (and then some) that are plaguing us ... only the problems are more severe in their case. Granted, many Asian countries are on the rise; some may eventually become great powers to rival America and the EU ... or they may not; who's to say what the world will look like 10 years from now. I doubt many people in 1988 could foresee the changes that were to take place within 2 years, let alone 20.
     
  12. rudeboy

    rudeboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,786
    Location:
    Tower of power.
    So, tell me, when was the last time you paid good money to go to a club to see and hear four guys, all sitting calmly, one with a vertical, single stringed fiddle, one with some sort of layed down thing he bangs on and two who are gesticulating furiously and trying to look like ribbons in repose?
    And they serve no coffee, just some green, hot water that tastes like irrigation....

    I could see myself doing that, consider the alternative....
    Except for the green boiled water thing. Yecch.
     
  13. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,921
    Location:
    Germany
    I'm not following. No complicated analogies for me please. Only simple questions that can be answered with yes or no.
     
  14. -frog-

    -frog- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,936
    Location:
    Świdnik, Poland
    Heartc, I am sorry to state that, but in my opinion, you have balls grown bigger than brains, which seems to be the exact problem, that mr G.W.Bush is facing.

    As I admire your deep insight into the history of the past 60 years of modern Europe, I must still insist, that there are basic errors undermining your logic.
    Making the US 'The guardian of Europe's freedom' is as much of an error, as it is to name Hitler 'the great father of a nation'.
    First of all- the U.S. stood back, as the decisive battles of the World War II were fought. Joining the war in December 1941 (with first troops only to be sent to Europe in early 1942) was not rescuing Europe's ass but only contributing to the shortening of the period of war.
    Some facts to proove my point:
    Official end of the Battle of Britain, England is no longer threatened with an invasion from Germany.
    Germans stopped near Moscow and finally repelled in Russian counterattack from 5-6.12.41
    Afrika Korps stopped and repelled in operation Crusader.
    All of the Axis operations virtually came to a hold, by the time Japan raided US.

    Mr Tadeusz Kwiatkowski, a professor, who taught me logics at the University sometimes used a simple sentence, to represent a sentence which, although formally meeting all linguistic requirements that a question should meet, was still not a question.
    The sentence is:
    "When did the U.S. declare war against Nazi Germany?"

    ...
    although it looks like a question, with the question particle "When" at the begining and the question mark at the end...

    It's nothing more than a LIE...

    cause it has the false statement 'US did declare war against Nazi Germany' inside :)

    Moreover- the sole success of the US during the cold war, was the defence of Southern Korea... all major operations besides that were either a fiasco (vide Vietnam) or a fiasco + blamage (CIA operations in South America and Mid West).

    The U.S. in the recent 2 decades does only deploy troops, if there is a vital U.S. economic interest in the region. How could it be 'the world Peacemaker' if they fail to react in cases of ethnic cleansing (Rwanda for example), civil wars and hostilities between countries. They can, but they won't. U.S. military industry has far more interest in supplying weapons to Somalia, Ethiopia, Erithrea or Sudan (not to mention goverments and militias in Southern America and Asia) than it has in supporting a government that would stabilise situation in those regions. G.W.Bushes financial supporters come mainly from two branches of industry- the Oil and Weapons producers. How can one expect him (GWB) to act against his own preservation instincts? How can one justify a war, that is fought for oil and not for peace? How come, that there are more Iraqi civilians killed each week in Iraq, than there were in over a year in Saddam's times (and that is in the fifth year of 'peace operation' that was initially planned for a year and a half at most)?
     
    2 people like this.
  15. gandhi

    gandhi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,613
    usa did declair war on nazi germany

    just watch savin privat ryan

    or one of those john wayne war films

    or patton

    or band o brothers

    real facts ar in these film

    so ther
     
  16. biles

    biles Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,898
    Location:
    49deg 11min 35.97sec N, 122deg 51min 57.65min W
    The last time USA declared war was in 1917. They hadn't filmed Saving Private Ryan yet and patton was busy shooting meskins with his coltses and playing polo, sailing, partying with movie stars, yelling at the chauffer, yelling at the domestic help, lamenting the lack of 'decent white domestic help, god damned meskins. Kill em all!'

    And John Wayne hadn't had the servere groin injury that made walk funny or the overdose that left him talking funny, it all happened later.

    So your arguments are now moot.
    :D
     
  17. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,921
    Location:
    Germany
    I agree that the Freedom card is overplayed a lot, but I think you are dangerously underestimating or intentionally downplaying the effect America was having on the likely outcome of the 2nd World War even before the U.S. officially entered into the conflict.
    Economically and financially, Britain was on the last straw - or would have been had it not been for American backing - well before it became apparent that the war would end with an Allied victory. The same applies, even more so than for Britain, to the Soviet Union. On the eastern front, the war frequently hung in the balance with even little things having the potential to turn the tide in either side's favor. As late as in July 43, the Soviets came painfully close to defeat in the battle of Kursk. Even though it did eventually turn into a Soviet victory, it was a very close run thing, and something as seemingly trivial as having one additional armored corps in the battle might have won the Germans the battle. And who knows how things would have turned out if that had happened. And with no Allied invasion to fear, the Germans might well have sent that extra corps to Kursk. Hell, without American-supplied Shermans and all the massive convoys from Canada / America to the U.K., the African campaign might not even have resulted in victory for the British. Yes, I know Lend-Lease didn't give the Allies a fresh army of tanks, planes and guns each day but it did supply a lot of crucial resources and raw materials that the Soviets and the British badly needed.
    What's more, with no hope of a successful return to the mainland, who knows the British would even have opted to continue the war indefinitely? Churchill knew that Britain would win this war the moment he learned of the German declaration of war on the U.S. and not a minute earlier because only THEN was the only possible result the complete and utter defeat of Germany.

    I am not saying America single-handedly went to Europe and crashed Hitler's party, but I am saying that America's part in the war (the inofficial pre-41 part as well as the active engagement post Pearl Harbor) was what definitely swung the balance in favor of the Allies. Without America, the whole war could have gone either way. Perhaps the Allies would have won anyway, but IMHO it was not at all a foregone conclusion. Take a little pressure off the Axis here, weaken the Allies a bit there .... in many critical situations, that might have been enough to produce a very different result than what happened historically.
     
  18. -al---

    -al--- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,848
    Location:
    Poznań
    http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. biles

    biles Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,898
    Location:
    49deg 11min 35.97sec N, 122deg 51min 57.65min W
    Well said! Hear hear!

    America seems to revere or revile FD Rooseveldt for his New Deal legislation...
    Many more people from The Rest Of The World revere him as the bringer of the Lend Lease acts. I think he was a great man, a titan. And I hope his name is remembered forever.
    Lend Lease was a war winner. US participation made the war end sooner, but lend lease stemmed the flow of fascism.
     
  20. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,921
    Location:
    Germany
    And before anyone starts knocking me, I'm perfectly aware that the Soviets and the British Commonwealth bore the brunt of the fighting and took most of the casualties. That has, however, nothing to do with how decisive the role of the U.S. was in that war.