Originally Posted by BodiSatva
I think that everybody should just rest their case on this point and be done with LightDemon. What is the point of any further communication if he will not take accountability for such an egregious error? Even worse if he is not even aware of such a ridiculous point of view. In any case, I am not going to give peons like this a moment more than they deserve...
Originally Posted by Iriemon
I think he did admit his error, #534. Ummm..No.
Originally Posted by LightDemon
Russia didn't count then? If Russia didn't put up such a fight in the east, Hitler wouldn't have been fighting a 2 front war. Too much credit is given to the western Allies, and not enough to the eastern front. Russia was by far the one who suffered the most casualties, the one that has contributed the most, the one who spent the most. Leningrad, as well as Stalingrad, became obsessions of Hitler because Hitler couldn't destroy them. Russia preoccupied the Germans, which then led the west to victory and glory, leaving themselves out of the picture for some reason...
But let's refer to that list once more. And I'll admit that calling that list ethnocentric was very impolite of me, but I did not misspoke. Impolite...Yes. Inaccurate...No. Any war involving any nation will be ethnocentric. This is simply an understood fact. That list is still ethnocentric, Of course in the context that it assumes that those wars are wars that the US wants to be involved in. And that is the point, you said that the USA stays out of wars and that they sit on the sidelines trying to make a profit. I obviously refuted this idea witha long list of wars that the USA actually engaged in and you have done NOTHING to refute this FACT... Referring back to my statement, I said, the US is known for staying out of wars because that's how they make a lot of profit. AS are MANY countries, stop being so naive...
Lets pick one of these wars of the list to show you my point. How about the most important one to our American heritage? The Revolutionary War. First you would need to know the relationship between the North versus the South. The South didn't want to become independant in the first place, and they were forced to sign the Declaration of Independance Incorrect, what the hell are you even talking about...Jefferson was a Virginain and he WROTE the Dec of Ind. Washintong was a Southerner as well, stop making stupid statements (you can tell from the penmanship of the signatures). :roll: Britain was the one buying all of their cotton, why would they want to break away from them? It wouldn't make sense to break of ties with Britain. Some...sure, so what? Stop trying to figure out complex ideas...
On the other hand the North needed to break off ties with Britain because of all the taxes on thier products. This distinction is evident because of the different market systems between the North and the South. What actually happened was British troops were sent to both South and North states, but the ones in the South were not fighting American troops, Sure, nothing happened in the South, like Yorktown or Savannah or Charleston? Haha they were fighting Native Americans. They were actually protecting the Southern states.
In the North, we had the French helping us out. By about 1779, French troops have nearly double the size of the US troops in North America. Silly as you might think it sound, but if it wasn't for the French (and it's hatred for the Brits) the US couldn't have won this war. That is debatable And now, let me go back to my statement, if the French had more troops than the US Lets see the numbers...OK? , that means the US contributed less. On the same lines of my statement that the US is hardly a major contributor to WW2, this is what context I'm stating it in. False Assumptions leading to faulty logic And how did it make money of this? Well, I'll defer everyone to the Declaration of Independance, which is essentially just a list of taxes the US refuses to pay (plus a fancy introduction in the front). That is a fairly lame way to look at it...
In WW2, the US have not contributed as nearly as much money as Britain or Russia have. Lets see some figures then... Not nearly the number of soldiers compared to Russia, So? and not nearly as much time as either of those two. In the end, it was Russia who did the most fighting, Incorrect but consequently also who suffered the most, both socially and economically. If you asked me who won the war, I'd say it was actually Russia's defiance against Hitler, not soley responsible for the entire victory of course. Of course this is so obvious, and one of your only concessions...it makes you laughable. It was the 2 fronts that defeated Hitler after all. And there was no Japan after all :roll: But compared to what the US offered, Russia was the one who put thier neck on the line. Shortsighted
But I'll admit to this much, after WW2, the US has changed it's foreign policy as it has become one of the most powerfullest nations in the world. So after WW2, it has become intricately involved in wars, It was before, during, and after WWII which is half that list basically. But beyond WW2 and earlier, expanding territorially was not a problem for US until they reached the pacific and when Mexico wouldn't let them get more than Texas.
And I'll also admit I may have crossed the line when I said the US was hardly involved in WW2, which they were. But not in comparison with the other major players in that war. My bad!