(Katrina): U.S. receives aid offers from around the world

[PlasmaTwa2]

If you're following along PT2 you'll see it's really not a fight. B/C just has the facts against him.

So did those Soviets, and we beat them, too! :nanner:

 

[Will E Worm]

With this sentence you're implying America fought and won both world wars on its own and by doing so bailed out many countries. I do hope you know that's not true?
Also, you probably weren't even alive during that time. It was a previous generation that did the fighting. Do you think America is entitled to recieve help because of what another generation accomplished? That would be like me asking the Dutch government to send me through university because my grandfather was a member of the Dutch resistance. I think it's very sad you want to take credit for what another generation died for.

This is why you're not an American, and I can thank God for that. :hatsoff:

Also, because our family members fought in those wars. It's still relevant.
Your country is so small Hitler or any country could just walk in and plant their flag.

I thought all this America bashing was going to cease once The Great Messiah took office.

No, matter what America does the rest of the world will never be grateful.

Ingrates. :thefinger

Katrina was a few years ago...so...how is this relevant now?

Understood. It's archives day.

It's not relevant. :hatsoff:

But does Namreg love us yet?

He doesn't live here. Who cares. He is now on the no fly list.

Also, he called Obama a Republican. :1orglaugh

^ Gentlemen, gentlemen, stop the fighting.

The only thing that matters is that we won. :tongue:

So did those Soviets, and we beat them, too! :nanner:

Yes, we won, and we beat the commies. :hatsoff:

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Boothbabe]

This is why you're not an American, and I can thank God for that. :hatsoff:

Also, because our family members fought in those wars. It's still relevant.
Your country is so small Hitler or any country could just walk in and plant their flag.

I don't quite understand the first sentence. Are you saying you feel you are entitled to something because one or some of your family members fought in WWII? Do you really want to take credit for something you didn't do? Also, following your line of thinking it would be justified for the rest of Europe to invade Germany even tho the current generation has nothing to do with what happened during WWII. Lastly, my grandfather also fought in WWII as a member of the Dutch resistance but you don't see me asking for special treatment. He risked his life for his country and for me to expect special treatment because of it would be dishonoring everything he did.

 

[Gordar]

So did those Soviets, and we beat them, too! :nanner:

& exactly how did you defeat the Soviet Union?

The USSR was beaten by itself, not by the US. If the US had not existed, it would still have fallen apart & probably sooner than later, since it's partially the hatred of the US that kept the USSR alive.

 

[Jack Davenport]

B/C you are lost...so much so you're making shit up now...

I'll let others decide between the 2 posts if you have a clue or not. We had no option in going to war with the Axis powers because we were attacked by them. Just because the Japanese were the particular wing that threw the first punch at us doesn't mitigate the fact that it was part of their strategy to take over the world. But keep back tracking you might get to the point where you're at 1940 and you can see for yourself.

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=4057892&postcount=35


http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=4057942&postcount=36

Ok. I see why you want to have this pissing contest. I thought I was correct when I stated that Japan attacked us first and then Germany officially declared war on the US. In fact I was correct the first time . Because Germany made an official proclamation of war on December 11, 1941.

Although I do understand why you would want the US to seem as if our involvement was inevitable it was not. Which was my point to start with.

You see, I can recognize an internationalist when I see one. The fact that the US came to the aid of our European friends doesn't quite mesh with your worldview that the US is a clumsy giant and didn't do them any favors at all.

In your eyes, America is a bully. And you have to make the case that Germany would have mopped the floor with us and Swastikas would be flying over the Capitol. A shooting war with Germany was not the same thing as B-17's carpet bombing German factories.

A few incidences between the US and Germany involving ammunition ships to Britain is not an official war. Nice attempt trying to discredit the many Americans who died in Europe. I bet those grave markers in France really stick in your craw because it is a constant reminder to those in that part of the world that the United States gave the lives of it's own people to help turn back tyranny in a land where we were not immediately threatened.

You also have to make the case that the US was so threatened by Germany that it was the Europeans who saved our asses. In your twisted internationalist POV our involvement in Europe was not because of our willingness to join with Great Britain to turn back Hitler, but because we were so frightened that we had to become involved in Europe. The fact remains that the US did not become officially involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor. So you sir are void of the facts.

There is no chest thumping by me when I state that we helped in the European front when we did not have to. I still believe that Great Britain could have handled the job with only military supplies and other aid from the US. The American people did not want to go to war so Roosevelt helped in any way he could. It was not until Pearl Harbor that the American people rallied to end the aggression by the axis powers.

So I stand by my earlier statement that although the US was involved in Europe, we could have just as easily kept our focus in the Pacific theater against the enemy that actually attacked us without becoming involved Europe.. We did so because it was the right thing to do, not because Germany and Italy were such a grave threat to our mainland.

But then again to you, the US is a fucking bull in a china shop that has never done anything but kill innocent people or impose our way of life on the rest of the world.

 

[Friday on my mind]

As much as you try and cover your ass on this and as much as you want to equate agreements as officially being involved in a war, it just doesn't fly. You said officially which we were not. We probably would have been involved without the attack on Pearl Harbor, but there is nothing to indicate that we absolutely would have been.

I will stand corrected on the time line when Hitler and Mussolini declared war on the US, but I don't see you calling out the poster that made that misstatement first.

It's also funny that you are happy that the US didn't wait until we were "encircled" yet you are probably one of those that think Iran wants nuclear weapons to detonate in the desert during a Ramadan celebration.

As history especially WW2 is something I think I know a little about I will weigh in here.

Our president at the time (FDR) very much beleived we needed to be part of the fight against Hiltler.What prevented him from doing more before pearl harbor then lend lease etc. for the English was the american populations very strong isolationist stay out of this new war the euopeans are having sentiment.FDR beleived and correctly so IMO that once Hitler had disposed of the english and russians he would have turned his attention to the US.IMO there is absolutely no way the english could have held out much longer without more then just supplies against the germans.Hitler and the other axis powers posed a very real and clear danger to all the western democracies,I would add that is in very sharp contrast to the situation today with Iran who even if they build nukes only really threatens Israel with those (but of course they would be nuked back by Israel so I don't see it happening).But a nuclear Iran would not now or in the near future have any capabability to actually attack the US with such weapons,they like a lot of countries might be able to develope nukes but it's delivery systems (ICBM's) that you need to be able to get them very far and that is even tougher technology to develope.

America played a key role in defeating the axis (especially our role as the arsenal of democracy as we were called).Without us entering the war England and Russia would have surely fallen.But that does not mean we won the war,any look at the casualties of the allied powers will show you by far it was the russians who did the fighting and dying and after them the english in the european theatre.As was said in the outstanding documentary on the war "The World at war" what we did win was the peace.Meaning europe had a civil war which none of them got to win and reap the spoils of from winning when it was over.The US got that,we emerged undamaged with much lower dead and wounded numbers then the other euopean allies did and got to dictate for the most part excluding the area dominated by the soviets how post war europe would be, to our benefit.

 

[Jack Davenport]

& exactly how did you defeat the Soviet Union?

The USSR was beaten by itself, not by the US. If the US had not existed, it would still have fallen apart & probably sooner than later, since it's partially the hatred of the US that kept the USSR alive.

What an ignorant statement. The Soviet Union was driven to collapse because of military spending it could not sustain . The costs of the invasion of Afghanistan as well trying to match the US in beefing up it's military coupled with the domestic expenditures brought them down. Had the US not existed the chances of the Soviet Union still existing today are pretty damn good. Or they could have been in a struggle for world domination with China.

Even Gorbachev saw the handwriting on the wall, and it was the main reason he decided to negotiate with Reagan.

 

[Jack Davenport]

As history especially WW2 is something I think I know a little about I will weigh in here.

Our president at the time (FDR) very much beleived we needed to be part of the fight against Hiltler.What prevented him from doing more before pearl harbor then lend lease etc. for the English was the american populations very strong isolationist stay out of this new war the euopeans are having sentiment.FDR beleived and correctly so IMO that once Hitler had disposed of the english and russians he would have turned his attention to the US.IMO there is absolutely no way the english could have held out much longer without more then just supplies against the germans.Hitler and the other axis powers posed a very real and clear danger to all the western democracies,I would add that is in very sharp contrast to the situation today with Iran who even if they build nukes only really threatens Israel with those (but of course they would be nuked back by Israel so I don't see it happening).But a nuclear Iran would not now or in the near future have any capabability to actually attack the US with such weapons,they like a lot of countries might be able to develope nukes but it's delivery systems (ICBM's) that you need to be able to get them very far and that is even tougher technology to develope.

America played a key role in defeating the axis (especially our role as the arsenal of democracy as we were called).Without us entering the war England and Russia would have surely fallen.But that does not mean we won the war,any look at the casualties of the allied powers will show you by far it was the russians who did the fighting and dying and after them the english in the european theatre.As was said in the outstanding documentary on the war "The World at war" what we did win was the peace.Meaning europe had a civil war which none of them got to win and reap the spoils of from winning when it was over.The US got that,we emerged undamaged with much lower dead and wounded numbers then the other euopean allies did and got to dictate for the most part excluding the area dominated by the soviets how post war europe would be, to our benefit.

The Lend-lease act was the equivalent of Arms to the Contras at that time.

Roosevelt knew he couldn't convince the American people to join in the war in Europe so he did everything he could to help without going to war.

Hitler was able to fight his battles in Europe because of the proximity to Germany. Now waging war across the Atlantic Ocean is a whole different matter completely. To think that Hitler would have been able to stretch his military that thin even if he secured a base in Britain is highly unlikely.

He would have needed Japan's help and indeed was probably his line of reasoning after the attack on PH.

 

[Friday on my mind]

What an ignorant statement. The Soviet Union was driven to collapse because of military spending it could not sustain . The costs of the invasion of Afghanistan as well trying to match the US in beefing up it's military coupled with the domestic expenditures brought them down. Had the US not existed the chances of the Soviet Union still existing today are pretty damn good. Or they could have been in a struggle for world domination with China.

Even Gorbachev saw the handwriting on the wall, and it was the main reason he decided to negotiate with Reagan.

IMO the cassette tape and the beatles and western culture in general had MUCH more to do with the collapse of the soviets then anything.People in Russia wanted Levis,rock and roll and VCRS.

 

[Jack Davenport]

IMO the cassette tape and the beatles and western culture in general had MUCH more to do with the collapse of the soviets then anything.People in Russia wanted Levis,rock and roll and VCRS.

Funny, I never saw Gorbachev request that the US stop making blue jeans or VCR's in any of the summits.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Hitler and the other axis powers posed a very real and clear danger to all the western democracies,I would add that is in very sharp contrast to the situation today with Iran who even if they build nukes only really threatens Israel with those (but of course they would be nuked back by Israel so I don't see it happening).But a nuclear Iran would not now or in the near future have any capabability to actually attack the US with such weapons,they like a lot of countries might be able to develope nukes but it's delivery systems (ICBM's) that you need to be able to get them very far and that is even tougher technology to develope.

Yeah, Iran has absolutely zero aspirations to land a nuke in the hands of a terrorist. It's only Israel.



What a crock of bullshit.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Funny, I never saw Gorbachev request that the US stop making blue jeans or VCR's in any of the summits.

If he had his request would have been laughed at.:1orglaugh

There was a recent documentary on PBS called "How the Beatles rocked the kremlin" which I posted about here.Yes most here scoffed at the idea that somehow the Beatles were a major factor in the demise of the soviets,but they are wrong.

When the Russians got to see just how great and hip and cool life in the west seemed to be they wanted it and wanted it bad.Even today it was said there literally are hundreds of beatles impersonator bands in Russia.Those are the kinds of desires and wants that cause social change.

 

[Jack Davenport]

If he had his request would have been laughed at.:1orglaugh

There was a recent documentary on PBS called "How the Beatles rocked the kremlin" which I posted about here.Yes most here scoffed at the idea that somehow the Beatles were a major factor in the demise of the soviets,but they are wrong.

When the Russians got to see just how great and hip and cool life in the west seemed to be they wanted it and wanted it bad.Even today it was said there literally are hundreds of beatles impersonator bands in Russia.Those are the kinds of desires and wants that cause social change.

It's always about the Beatles with you isn't it? :glugglug:


Anyway, I enjoy the political discussion on this board. Even if you and Mega are wrong. Probably nice people in real life. I'll try to remember that.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Yeah, Iran has absolutely zero aspirations to land a nuke in the hands of a terrorist. It's only Israel.



What a crock of bullshit.

If that's what your really worried about (personally I'm not) then Pakistan which already has nukes ,is actually full of taliban Al queda supporters is much more of a danger.People just don't understand nukes IMO,they aren't something you just carry around easily and there are other considerations and barriers to them being used as well.Lets for a moment consider a terrorist group got one and was able to smuggle it into NYC in a conatainer ship and detonate it.What would be our response.

A. Nothing? Right we got nuked and do nothing,not likely

B. Do our best to trace the origin country of supply of the device and turn them into a parking lot. This is what would be our response



I mean c'mon if it was really that easy for a country to just give a nuke to someone and have them use it on an enemy without it being traced back why didn't the russians or the chinease or even the USA do that already?

 

[Jack Davenport]

If that's what your really worried about (personally I'm not) then Pakistan which already has nukes ,is actually full of taliban Al queda supporters is much more of a danger.People just don't understand nukes IMO,they aren't something you just carry around easily and there are other considerations and barriers to them being used as well.Lets for a moment consider a terrorist group got one and was able to smuggle it into NYC in a conatainer ship and detonate it.What would be our response.

A. Nothing? Right we got nuked and do nothing,not likely

B. Do our best to trace the origin country of supply of the device and turn them into a parking lot. This is what would be our response



I mean c'mon if it was really that easy for a country to just give a nuke to someone and have them use it on an enemy without it being traced back why didn't the russians or the chinease or even the USA do that already?

Good question, but here is my answer. Before a few years ago terrorists gaining control of nuclear weapons was not something that many thought would be possible. Even by those in the most classified of positions within the intelligence community.

Up to that point, The only countries that possessed these weapons were the superpowers and a few countries like India and Pakistan. Now China, Russia and the US knew the ramifications of allowing the weapons to fall in the hands of individuals or an individual. The fact that while devastating, a single nuclear attack would not have destroyed a whole country and would certainly elicit a response from the country victimized. It also would have been traceable. Terrorists OTOH or countries that sponsor it have no qualms in using a nuclear weapon in the name of Jihad and you are being quite naive if you think that it is not one of their goals.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Good question, but here is my answer. Before a few years ago terrorists gaining control of nuclear weapons was not something that many thought would be possible. Even by those in the most classified of positions within the intelligence community.

Up to that point, The only countries that possessed these weapons were the superpowers and a few countries like India and Pakistan. Now China, Russia and the US knew the ramifications of allowing the weapons to fall in the hands of individuals or an individual. The fact that while devastating, a single nuclear attack would not have destroyed a whole country and would certainly illicit a response from the country victimized. It also would have been traceable. Terrorists OTOH or countries that sponsor it have no qualms in using a nuclear weapon in the name of Jihad and you are being quite naive if you think that it is not one of their goals.

It's what they said about the russian communists.Godless atheists who would actually use them.I don't buy it,no one wants to be wiped off the map.Not christians,not atheist communists,not jihadists.That doesn't mean a nuclear war will never happen ,it just means it will not happen as a rational strategic occurrence.It will happen when a country or govt feels their backs are against the wall or via just any everyday accident.By accident which has almost occured a few times already is probably the most likely way the first nuke ever gets used.

 

[Jack Davenport]

It's what they said about the russian communists.Godless atheists who would actually use them.I don't buy it,no one wants to be wiped off the map.Not christians,not atheist communists,not jihadists.That doesn't mean a nuclear war will never happen ,it just means it will not happen as a rational strategic occurrence.It will happen when a country or govt feels their backs are against the wall or via just any everyday accident.By accident which has almost occured a few times already is probably the most likely way the first nuke ever gets used.

I see you are in New jersey. Close to New York City are you?

I hope I am wrong. I will say that. Let me ask you something, if the 9/11 terrorists could have detonated a nuke instead of ramming planes into buildings, do you think they would have done it?

 

[Friday on my mind]

I see you are in New jersey. Close to New York City are you?

I hope I am wrong. I will say that. Let me ask you something, if the 9/11 terrorists could have detonated a nuke instead of ramming planes into buildings, do you think they would have done it?

50 miles from NYC.

Do I think they would have used a nuke if they could ? Probably

But again whats preventing that is no country is going to give them one.Just consider what our response would have been if instead of killing 3,000 at the world trade center (which I had been under many times btw,path trains from NJ ran under it) a nuclear device ,a small one even had been detonated in NY harbor and killed several hundred thousand.We would have nuked people back and asked questions later.

We would be able to determine how and where these people got the nuke in short order I think.But even if we couldn't we would just nuke who we thought was most likely.No one gets to allow using a nuke made by them and expect to survive.Thats why they have not been used by anyone since 1945.

 

[girk1]

Just an F.Y.I...

Thanks for a thread pointing out the ignorance here of those who would have one believe that other countries/people don't give a damn about us 'poor' Americans It is estimated that nearly a billion dollars in aid(roughly $850 million dollars) was offered during Katrina even from many of the world's poorest developing nations(Some of which was graciously declined by the US).
Many nations too poor to offer money sent or offered to send volunteer nurses/Doctors & rescue workers.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/d...-hurricane-katrina-international-aid-response

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_katrina

Cuba who 'routuinely' sends volunteer Nurse/Doctors even offered to send around 1600 medical personnel to New Orleans ,but the offer was rebuffed by the 'poor' Americans:dunno:



And everyone knows the outpouring of goodwill from around the world the US got during 9/11 until the Bush Administartion decided to go "cowboy" & foolishly attack a nation that had nothing to do with it. A decision that is costing the US billions still.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Thanks for a thread pointing out the ignorance here of those who would have one believe that other countries/people don't give a damn about us 'poor' Americans It is estimated that nearly a billion dollars in aid(roughly $850 million dollars) was offered during Katrina even from many of the world's poorest developing nations(Some of which was graciously declined by the US).
Many nations too poor to offer money sent or offered to send volunteer nurses/Doctors & rescue workers.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/d...-hurricane-katrina-international-aid-response

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_katrina

Cuba who 'routuinely' sends volunteer Nurse/Doctors even offered to send around 1600 medical personnel to New Orleans ,but the offer was rebuffed by the 'poor' Americans:dunno:



And everyone knows the outpouring of goodwill from around the world the US got during 9/11 until the Bush Administartion decided to go "cowboy" & foolishly attack a nation that had nothing to do with it. A decision that is costing the US billions still.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

You should apply for the Tonight Show gig.