Thanks, Dubya. $1,600,000,000,000

[limerickman]

It would have been a good idea if many western and eastern bloc nations not meddled in middle east affairs. Seems that the British, French, Soviets all meddled as well. The British and French were meddling way before 1946.

...............well when any British/French/Soviet based members try excusing their country's foreign policy in the Middle East, we will bring this to their attention.
OK?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

...............well when any British/French/Soviet based members try excusing their country's foreign policy in the Middle East, we will bring this to their attention.
OK?

It doesn't matter if someone is excusing any actions. Wouldn't you want to disclose all the facts or just cherry pick those for your argument?

Sure. Blame American involvement and dismiss any european meddling in the world. European involvement is just as responsible as American involvement in creating the mess that that is the middle east.

 

[limerickman]

We put the majority of our gross national product to bare in WWII for mere financial gain? .

You only joined the war when you were bombed at Pearl Harbour.
Before that you managed to do very well out of the war in Europe - in commercial terms.

We developed the defeated countries and those of our allies after the war for mere financial gain? .

This is incorrect.
Your country invested in the defeated nations out of self interest, not benevolence.

The British only paid off their debt (with interest 5% annualised since 1945) to you last year.
And money given in loans or development aid came with conditions and/or was repaid in full with interest.

We spent trillions in the cold war for mere financial gain? .

You spent trillions that directly funded your armaments industry, as a result of the Cold War.

 

[limerickman]

It doesn't matter if someone is excusing any actions. Wouldn't you want to disclose all the facts or just cherry pick those for your argument?

Until someone from the soviet union or Europe starts going on about how their country's actions make a region more secure, I'd be happy to confront them.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

This is incorrect. Your country invested in the defeated nations out of self interest, not benevolence.

Partially true. Several reasons why the US helped Europe get back on its feet.
Some political and some economical. The US did not wish to see Soviet influence expand into western Europe. The US did not want to see the europeans make the same mistakes as they did at the end of WW1.(treaty of Versailles) and yes it was a chance for US economic interest to gain by increasing marketshare. Besides who else could have provided aid on the level that was needed?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Until someone from the soviet union or Europe starts going on about how their country's actions make a region more secure, I'd be happy to confront them.

I'm sure you will.

 

[limerickman]

Partially true. Several reasons why the US helped Europe get back on its feet.
Some political and some economical. The US did not wish to see Soviet influence expand into western Europe. The US did not want to see the europeans make the same mistakes as they did at the end of WW1.(treaty of Versailles) and yes it was a chance for US economic interest to gain by increasing marketshare. Besides who else could have provided aid on the level that was needed?

There were several factors as to why USA did makes loans to Europe.
Primarily the USA made loans, with interest, to Europe.
Those loans came with pre-conditions such as agreements to allow US companies develop in Europe.
(Coca-Cola for example, was allowed to expand unfettered).

Also the USA was extremely concerned that countries like Germany and France could become part of the Soviet Union.
(Which begs the question - knowing that Stalin had wiped out millions of his own people - why did UK and USA make an alliance with such a monster?)

If the USA had not funded Europe, who would have??
Like pevious wars, you'd find that the funding for reconstruction would come from all those helpful international bankers like Barings/Rothchilds/etc who funded wars and reconstructions previously.
banks are only too happy to find the reconstruction of countries.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

There were several factors as to why USA did makes loans to Europe.
Primarily the USA made loans, with interest, to Europe.
Those loans came with pre-conditions such as agreements to allow US companies develop in Europe.
(Coca-Cola for example, was allowed to expand unfettered).

Is that really a problem? Europe was the direct cause of 2 world wars. It would only be fair to pay for your recovery.

(Which begs the question - knowing that Stalin had wiped out millions of his own people - why did UK and USA make an alliance with such a monster?)

****** was viewed as the greater and more immediate threat. My choice would have been to let the Nazis and Soviets fight it out. The Soviets got what they deserved. They made a pact with ****** and partition Poland. They made a pact with the devil and they paid a heavy price for it.

If the USA had not funded Europe, who would have??
Like pevious wars, you'd find that the funding for reconstruction would come from all those helpful international bankers like Barings/Rothchilds/etc who funded wars and reconstructions previously.
banks are only too happy to find the reconstruction of countries.

The Marshall plan was not the only recovery project. It did give western Europe the political and economic stability it needed to recover though.

 

[ndbiker]

You only joined the war when you were bombed at Pearl Harbour.
Before that you managed to do very well out of the war in Europe - in commercial terms.

I would hardly call it VERY well. While I am sure the arms we sold (via lend/lease) to Britain didn't hurt we were still fighting to get out of a depression. If we went to war only for financial gain I'm sure we could have become involved much earlier.



This is incorrect.
Your country invested in the defeated nations out of self interest, not benevolence.

Self interest? Some perhaps, but there were lessons learned after the debacle that was the Treaty of Versailles. One is don't crush your enemy after they have given up. If you lift them up it is much less likely a despot offering redemption will rise up. So if self interest also means developing security I'll agree. The attitude of Roosevelt and Churchill saved western Europe and Japan. You saw what the Soviet regime did to Eastern Europe.

The British only paid off their debt (with interest 5% annualised since 1945) to you last year.
And money given in loans or development aid came with conditions and/or was repaid in full with interest.

Thank you. Many have debts that may never be paid.



You spent trillions that directly funded your armaments industry, as a result of the Cold War.

I am certain we did not instigate a cold war merely to fund our arms industry. Flare ups in Korea, Cambodia, and Viet Nam were not started by the US. However, the last major arms build up during the Reagan years did result in the fall of the Soviet Union. Would Europe have been willing to stand up to the communist threat if the US had chosen to ignore it? Or, as before WWII, would they have said we should negotiate until the tanks were rolling down their streets?

 

[Billsworld]

Whatever happened to the real Republicans who claim to believe in smaller government and lower taxes?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071113/ap_on_go_co/war_costs

WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

Not picking at your premise or the point you are trying to make but I have a question. I would rather fight terrorism by not letting terrorists in the country ie seal the borders. Too simple?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

However, the last major arms build up during the Reagan years did result in the fall of the Soviet Union. Would Europe have been willing to stand up to the communist threat if the US had chosen to ignore it?

You silly nitwit.....Everyone knows that Pope John Paul was responsible for defeating communism. Or thats what some have told us.

 

[ndbiker]

You silly nitwit.....Everyone knows that Pope John Paul was responsible for defeating communism. Or thats what some have told us.

Silly me!

 

[limerickman]

I am certain we did not instigate a cold war merely to fund our arms industry. Flare ups in Korea, Cambodia, and Viet Nam were not started by the US.

America decided to get itself tangled in the Korea/Cambodia/Vietnam, through it's own volition.

However, the last major arms build up during the Reagan years did result in the fall of the Soviet Union. Would Europe have been willing to stand up to the communist threat if the US had chosen to ignore it? Or, as before WWII, would they have said we should negotiate until the tanks were rolling down their streets?

Moot point as to what caused the failure of the Eastern block.
There are several reasons as to why the Eastern block failed.

Reagan wasn't the sole cause for the fall of the Eastern block.
A change of regime within the Soviet Union - where a much younger leader in the form of Mikhail Gorbachov was elected- was part of the reason.
Gorbachov wanted better relations with the entire world anyway.

Also there were strong civil rights movements in Hungary, Czechoslovkia which predated Reagans tenure.
And the very inadequacy of the Communist system itself - helped to bring down the Iron curtain.

Would Europe have been willing to stand up to the communist threat if the US had chosen to ignore it?

Europe has faced and survived many threats throughout it's long history.
From the invasion of Ghenghis Khan, though the Cruscades, through to the Moors, through to the Ottoman Empire.
I believe that there is no doubt that Europe could and would have survived any threat from the Eastern block.

Or, as before WWII, would they have said we should negotiate until the tanks were rolling down their streets?

Ultimately sides negotiate.
You may not like to acknowledge that..........but they do.
You should know this from your own country's recent history.

Prior to 1939, negotiation was tried and it failed.
That happens sometimes.

Which begs the question, if your country was so concerned about tanks rolling around Europe, how come it took two years for your country to sign up?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Which begs the question, if your country was so concerned about tanks rolling around Europe, how come it took two years for your country to sign up?

How come your country NEVER signed up?

 

[limerickman]

How come your country NEVER signed up?

Politically we maintained a neutral stance during WW11.

And, just like the British/French/Soviets, no one here has tried to talk up what my country did or didn't do during WW11 or any other time.


So can you or ND tell us why, if your lot were so concerned about tanks rolling round Europe, your country sat by from 1939-1941 while profiteering from both sides of the conflict?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Politically we maintained a neutral stance during WW11.

And, just like the British/French/Soviets, no one here has tried to talk up what my country did or didn't do during WW11 or any other time.


So can you or ND tell us why, if your lot were so concerned about tanks rolling round Europe, your country sat by from 1939-1941 while profiteering from both sides of the conflict?

Really! What about all that talk about the Irish contribution? Why don't you tell everyone why your government decided to remain neutral. Tell us all the honorable reason Ireland was neutral.

 

[limerickman]

Really! What about all that talk about the Irish contribution? Why don't you tell everyone why your government decided to remain neutral. Tell us all the honorable reason Ireland was neutral.

How many time shave we been over this?

As a country, we remained politically neutral.
We remained neutral as we'd only attained independence within 18 yrs of the start of world war 2.
That simple.

150,000 Irish men joined the Allies during WW2.
Out of a population of 1.3 million people, that signifies a far higher contribution in terms of man power than say....the USA.

Now answer the question :

So can you or ND tell us why, if your lot were so concerned about tanks rolling round Europe, your country sat by from 1939-1941 while profiteering from both sides of the conflict?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

How many time shave we been over this?

As a country, we remained politically neutral.
We remained neutral as we'd only attained independence within 18 yrs of the start of world war 2.
That simple.

150,000 Irish men joined the Allies during WW2.
Out of a population of 1.3 million people, that signifies a far higher contribution in terms of man power than say....the USA.

Now answer the question :

So can you or ND tell us why, if your lot were so concerned about tanks rolling round Europe, your country sat by from 1939-1941 while profiteering from both sides of the conflict?

We'll go over this as many times as necessary so that people will know that you are spinning the truth about Ireland and WW2. While we are at it please tell us why your PM was the only high ranking official to sign a condolence book after ****** died. I'm sure he was sad that his only hope of attaining N. Ireland died with with ******.

 

[limerickman]

We'll go over this as many times as necessary so that people will know that you are spinning the truth about Ireland and WW2. .

What?
Spinning the truth?

We remained neutral as stated earlier.
That's not spinning.

While we are at it please tell us why your PM was the only high ranking official to sign a condolence book after ****** died. I'm sure he was sad that his only hope of attaining N. Ireland died with with ******.

Our PM signed a book of condolence at the German embassy after the head of State of Germany (******) died.
So what?


The same PM signed a book of condolence for King George when he died in 1953.
King George - the head of State of a country from who we only got independence after a terrible and bloody war.
So what?

 

[limerickman]

So can you or ND tell us why, if your lot were so concerned about tanks rolling round Europe, your country sat by from 1939-1941 while profiteering from both sides of the conflict?

We're awaiting your answer.